THE  LIBRARIES 


THE  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION 

AND 

ITS  THEOLOGY. 


THE 


Conservative  Eeeqiimatiqn 

/cot..  COLL. 

T.IBKARY 


AND 


ITSTHEOLeGfl''^^'^^^ 


AS  REPRESEiNTED  IN  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  AND  IN  THE 

HISTORY  AND  LITERATURE  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL 

LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 


By  CHARLES  P.  KRAUTH,  D.D., 

HORTON   PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOOr  IN   THE  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINART, 

AND   PROFESSOR   OF  INTELLECTUAL  AND  MORAL  PHILOSOPHY  IN  THB 

UNIVERSITY  OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO. 

1872. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1871,  ty 

J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT   &   CO., 

in   the  OfBce  of    tho   Librarian   of   Congress   at    Washington. 


LIPPINCOTT'S  PRESS 
PHILADELPHIA. 


Wo  iH  Pemorg 

OP 

CHARLES  PHILIP  KRAUTH,   D.D. 

MY  VENERATED  AND  SAINTED  FATHER, 

THIS  BOOK 

IS 

/'cOT.COLirN 

TJ[U?AUY 


I    Bll—       ikl      I     •> 


21857 


PREFACE. 


^"PHAT  some  form  of  Cliristiiinity  is  to  be  tlic  religion  of  tlic  world, 
J-  is  not  only  an  assured  fact  to  the  believer  in  Revelation,  but  must 
be  regarded  as  probable,  even  in  the  judgment  which  is  formed  on 
purely  natural  evidence.  Next  in  transcendent  importance  to  that 
fact,  and  beyond  it  in  present  interest,  as  a  question  relatively  un- 
decided, is  the  question.  What  form  of  Christianity  is  to  conquer 
the  world?  Shall  it  be  the  form  in  which  Christianity  now  exists, 
the  form  of  intermingling  and  of  division,  of  internal  separation  and 
warfare?  Is  the  territory  of  Christendom  forever  to  be  divided  be- 
tween antagonistic  communions,  or  occupied  by  them  conjointly?  Shall 
there  be  to  the  end  of  time  the  Greek,  the  Roman,  the  Protestant 
churches,  the  sects,  and  the  heretical  bodies?  Or  shall  one  or  other  of 
these  specific  forms  lift  itself  above  the  tangled  mass,  and  impose  order 
on  chaos  ?  Or  shall  a  form  yet  unrevealed  prove  the  church  of  the  future? 
To  this  the  answer  seems  to  be,  that  the  logic  of  the  question,  supported 
by  eighteen  centuries  of  history,  renders  it  probable  that  some  prin- 
ciple, or  some  combination  of  principles  now  existent,  will  assuredly, 
however  slowly,  determine  the  ultimate,  world-dominating  type  of 
Christianity.  Unless  there  be  an  exact  balance  of  force  in  the  differ- 
ent tendencies,  the  internally  strongest  of  them  will  ultimately  prevail 
over  the  others,  and,  unless  a  new  force  superior  to  it  comes  in,  will 
be  permanent. 

The  history  of  Christianity,  in  common  with  all  genuine  history, 
moves  under  the  influence  of  two  generic  ideas:  the  conservative, 
which  desires  to  secure  the  present  by  fidelity  to  the  results  of  the  past ; 
the  progressive,  which  looks  out,  in  hope,  to  a  better  future.  Reforma- 
tion is  the  great  harmonizer  of  the  two  principles.  Corresponding  with 
Conservatism,  Reformation,  and  Progress  are  three  generic  types  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  and  under  these  genera  all  the  species  are  but  shades,  modifica- 
tions, or  combinations,  as  all  hues  arise  from  three  primary  colors. 
Conservatism  without  Progress  produces  the  Romish  and  Greek  type 


Viil  PREFACE. 

of  the  Church.  Progress  without  Conservatism  runs  into  Revolution, 
Radicalism,  and  Sectarianism.  Reformation  is  antithetical  both  to  pas- 
sive persistence  in  wrong  or  passive  endurance  of  it,  and  to  Revolution 
as  a  mode  of  relieving  wrong.  Conservatism  is  opposed  to  Radicalism 
both  in  the  estimate  of  wrong  and  the  mode  of  getting  rid  of  it.  Radi- 
calism errs  in  two  respects :  in  its  precipitance  it  often  mistakes  wheat  for 
tares,  and  its  eradication  is  so  hasty  and  violent  that  even  when  it  plucks 
up  tares  it  brings  the  wheat  with  them.  Sober  judgment  and  sober  means 
characterize  Conservatism.  Reformation  and  Conservatism  really  in- 
volve each  other.  That  which  claims  to  be  Reformatory,  yet  is  not  Con- 
servative, is  Sectarian ;  that  which  claims  to  be  Conservative,  and  is  not 
Reformatory,  is  Stagnation  and  Corruption.  True  Catholicity  is  Con- 
servatism, but  Protestantism  is  Reformatory ;  and  these  two  are  com- 
plementary, not  antagonistic.  The  Church  problem  is  to  attain  a  Pro- 
testant Catholicity  or  Catholic  Protestantism.  This  is  the  end  and 
aim  of  Conservative  Reformation. 

Reformation  is  the  means  by  which  Conservatism  of  the  good  that 
is,  and  progress  to  the  good  yet  to  be  won,  is  secured.  Over  against 
the  stagnation  of  an  isolated  Conservatism,  the  Church  is  to  hold 
Reformation  as  the  instrument  of  progress.  Over  against  the  abuses 
of  a  separatistic  and  one-sided  progressiveness,  she  is  to  see  to  it 
that  her  Reformation  maintains  that  due  reverence  for  history,  that 
sobriety  of  tone,  that  patience  of  spirit,  and  that  moderation  of 
manner,  which  are  involved  in  Conservatism.  The  good  that  has  been 
is  necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  good  that  is  to  be.  There  are  to  be 
no  absolutely  fresh  starts.  If  the  foundation  were  removed,  the  true 
course  would  not  be  to  make  a  new  one,  but  to  find  the  old  one,  and 
lay  it  again.  But  the  foundation  never  was  wholly  lost,  nor  was  there, 
in  the  worst  time  of  the  accumulation  of  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  an 
utter  ceasing  of  the  building  of  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones  upon  it. 
The  Reformation,  as  Christian,  accepted  the  old  foundation;  as  reform- 
atory, it  removed  the  wood,  hay,  and-  stubble  ;  as  conservative,  it  care- 
fully separated,  guarded,  and  retained  the  gold,  silver,  and  precious 
gtones,  the  additions  of  pious  human  hands,  befitting  the  foundation  and 
the  temple  which  was  to  be  reared  upon  it.  Rome  had  accumulated 
greatly  and  given  up  nothing,  till  the  foundation  upheld  little  but  per- 
ishing human  traditions,  and  the  precious  things  were  lost  in  the  heaps 
of  rubbish.  The  revolutionary  spirit  of  the  radical  Refi)rm  proposed  to 
leave  nothing  but  the  foundation,  to  sweep  from  it  everything  which  had 
been  built  upon  it.  The  Conservative,  equally  accepting  the  foundation 
which  has  been  laid  once  for  all,  proposed  to  leave  on  it  everything  pre- 


PREFACE.  IX 

cious,  pure,  and  beautiful  which  had  risen  in  tlie  ages.  The  one  propo.scd 
to  pull  down  the  temple  ;  the  other,  to  purify  it,  and  to  replace  its  weak 
and  decayed  portions  with  solid  rock.  The  great  work  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  whicii  bears  the  generic  title  of  the  Reformation,  was  divided  be- 
tween these  tendencies ;  not,  indeed,  absolutely  to  the  last  extreme,  but 
yet  really  divided.  The  whole  Protestant  movement  in  the  Church  of  the 
West  was  reformatory  as  over  against  papal  Rome,  and  was  so  far  a 
unit ;  but  it  was  divided  within  itself,  between  the  conservative  and  radi- 
cal tendencies.  The  conservative  tendency  embodied  itself  in  the  Ref- 
ormation, in  which  Luther  was  the  leader;  the  radical,  in  Zwingle  and 
his  school.  Calvin  came  in  to  occupy  a  relatively  mediating  position, — 
conservative  as  compared  with  the  ultraism  of  Zwinglianism,  and  of  the 
heretical  tendencies  which  Zwinglianism  at  once  nurtured,  yet,  rela- 
tively to  Lutheranism,  largely  radical. 

The  Church  of  England  is  that  part  of  the  Reformed  Church  for  which 
most  affinity  with  the  conservatism  of  Lutheranism  is  usually  claimed. 
That  Church  occupies  a  position  in  some  respects  unique.  First,  under 
Henry  VIII.,  ceasing  to  be  Popish  without  ceasing  to  be  Romish  ;  then 
passing  under  the  influences  of  genuine  reformation  into  the  positively 
Lutheran  type;  then  influenced  by  the  mediating  position  of  the  school 
of  Bucer,  and  of  the  later  era  of  Melancthon,  a  school  which  claimed  the 
ability  practically  to  co-ordinate  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  positions ; 
and  finally  settling  into  a  system  of  compromise,  in  which  is  revealed  the 
influence  of  the  Roman  Catholic  view^s  of  Orders  in  the  ministry,  and, 
to  some  extent,  of  the  Ritual ;  of  the  Lutheran  tone  of  reformatory 
conservatism,  in  the  general  structure  of  the  Liturgy,  in  the  larger 
part  of  the  Articles,  and  especially  in  the  doctrine  of  Baptism ;  of  the 
mediating  theology  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination ;  and  of  Calvin- 
ism in  particular  changes  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and,  most 
of  all,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Conservatism 
of  the  Church  of  England,  even  in  the  later  shape  of  its  reform,  in 
many  respects  is  indubitable,  and  hence  it  has  often  been  called 
a  Lutheranizing  Church.  But  the  pressure  of  the  radicalism  to 
which  it  deferred,  perhaps  too  much  in  the  essence  and  too  little  in 
the  form,  brought  it  to  that  eclecticism  which  is  its  most  marked 
feature.  Lutheranizing,  in  its  conservative  sobriety  of  modes,  the 
Church  of  England  is  very  un- Lutheran  in  its  judgment  of  ends.  The 
conservatism  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation  exalted,  over  all,  pure  doc- 
trine as  the  divine  presupposition  of  a  pure  life,  and  this  led  to  an  ample 
and  explicit  statement  of  faith.  While  the  Church  of  England  stated 
doctrines  so    that   men    understood    its  utterances   in  different  ways, 


X  PREFACE. 

the  Lutheran  Church  tried  so  to  state  them  that  men  could  accept 
them  in  but  one  sense.  If  one  expression  was  found  inadequate  for 
this,  she  ga\?e  another.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  her  Book  of  Con- 
cord, the  most  explicit  Confession  ever  made  in  Christendom ;  the 
Church  of  England  has  her  Thirty-nine  Articles,  the  least  explicit 
among  the  official  utterances  of  the  Churches  of  the  Keformation, 
The  Eclectic  Reformation  is  like  the  Eclectic  Philosophy, —  it  accepts 
the  common  affirmation  of  the  different  systems,  and  refuses  their  nega- 
tions. Like  the  English  language,  the  English  Church  is  a  miracle  of 
corapositeness.  In  the  wonderful  tessellation  of  their  structure  is  the 
strength  of  both,  and  their  weakness.  The  English  language  is  two 
languages  inseparably  conjoined.  It  has  the  strength  and  affluence  of 
the  two,  and  something  of  the  awkwardness  necessitated  by  their 
union.  The  Church  of  England  has  two  great  elements ;  but  they  are 
not  perfectly  preserved  in  their  distinctive  character,  but,  to  some 
extent,  are  confounded  in  the  union.  With  more  uniformity  than  any 
other  great  Protestant  body,  it  has  less  unity  than  any.  Partly  in 
virtue  of  its  doctrinal  indeterminateness,  it  has  been  the  home  of  men  of 
the  most  opposite  opinions :  no  Calvinism  is  intenser,  no  Arminianism 
lower,  than  the  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  which  have  been  found  in 
the  Church  of  England.  It  has  furnished  able  defenders  of  Augustine, 
and  no  less  able  defenders  of  Pelagius.  Its  Articles,  Homilies,  and 
Liturgy  have  been  a  great  bulwark  of  Protestantism ;  and  yet,  seem- 
ingly, out  of  the  very  stones  of  that  bulwark  has  been  framed,  in  our 
day,  a  bridge  on  which  many  have  passed  over  into  Rome.  It  has  a 
long  array  of  names  dear  to  our  common  Christendom  as  the  masterly 
vindicators  of  her  common  foith,  and  yet  has  given  high  place  to 
men  who  denied  the  fundamental  verities  confessed  in  the  general 
creeds.  It  harbors  a  skepticism  which  takes  infidelity  by  the  hand, 
and  a  revised  mediievalism  which  longs  to  throw  itself,  with  tears,  on 
the  neck  of  the  Pope  and  the  Patriarch,  to  beseech  them  to  be  gentle, 
and  not  to  make  the  terms  of  restored  fellowship  too  difficult.  The 
doctrinal  indeterminateness  which  has  w^on  has  also  repelled,  and  made 
it  an  object  of  suspicion  not  only  to  great  men  of  the  most  opposite 
opinions,  but  also  to  great  bodies  of  Christians.  It  has  a  doctrinal 
laxity  which  excuses,  and,  indeed,  invites,  innovation,  conjoined  with 
an  organic  fixedness  which  prevents  the  free  play  of  the  novelty. 
Hence  the  Church  of  England  has  been  more  depleted  than  any  other, 
by  secessions.  Either  the  Anglican  Church  must  come  to  more  fix- 
edness in  doctrine  or  to  more  pliableness  in  form,  or  it  will  go  on, 
through  cycle  after  cycle  of  disintegration,  toward  ruin.     In  this  land. 


PREFACE.  xi 

which  seems  the  natural  heritage  of  that  Church  which  claims  the 
Church  of  England  as  its  mother,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
is  numerically  smallest  among  the  influential  denominations.  Its 
great  social  strength  and  large  influence  in  every  direction  only  ren- 
der more  striking  the  fact  that  there  is  scarcely  a  Church,  scarcely  a 
sect,  having  in  common  with  it  an  English  original,  which  is  not  far 
in  advance  of  it  in  statistical  strength.  Some  of  the  largest  commu- 
nions have  its  rigidity  in  form,  some  of  the  largest  have  its  looseness  in 
doctrine;  but  no  other  large  communion  attempts  to  combine  both.  The 
numbers  of  those  whom  the  Church  of  England  has  lost  are  millions.  It 
has  lost  to  Independency,  lost  to  Presbyterianisra,  lost  to  Quakerism,  lost 
to  Methodism,  lost  to  Romanism,  and  lost  to  the  countless  forms  of  Sec- 
tarianism of  which  England  and  America,  England's  daughter,  have 
been,  beyond  all  nations,  the  nurses.  The  Church  of  England  has 
been  so  careful  of  the  rigid  old  bottle  of  the  form,  yet  so  careless  or  so 
helpless  as  to  what  the  bottle  might  be  made  to  hold,  that  the  new 
wine  which  went  into  it  has  been  attended  in  every  case  by  the  same 
history, —  the  fermenting  burst  the  bottle,  and  the  wine  was  spilled. 
Every  great  religious  movement  in  the  Church  of  England  has  been 
attended  ultimately  by  m  irreparable  loss  in  its  membership.  To  this 
rule  there  has  been  n(  exception  in  the  past.  Whether  the  present 
movement  which  convulses  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  America,  is  to  have  the  same  issue,  belongs,  per- 
haps, rather  to  the  prophet's  eye  than  to  the  historian's  pen.  Yet  to  those 
who,  though  they  stand  without,  look  on  with  profound  sympathy, 
the  internal  difficulties  which  now  agitate  those  Churches  seem  in- 
capable of  a  real,  abiding  harmonizing.  True  compromise  can  only 
sacrifice  preferences  to  secure  principles.  The  only  compromise  which 
seems  possible  in  the  Anglican  Churches  would  be  one  which  w^ould  sac- 
rifice principles  to  secure  preferences,  and  nothing  can  be  less  certain 
of  permanence  than  preferences  thus  secured.  These  present  difficul- 
ties in  the  Anglican  Churches  proceed  not  from  contradiction  of  its  prin- 
ciples, but  from  development  of  them.  These  two  classes  of  seeds  were 
sown  by  the  husbandmen  themselves, —  that  was  the  compromise.  The 
tares  may  grow  till  the  harvest,  side  by  side  w^ith  the  wheat,  with  which 
they  mingle,  but  which  they  do  not  destroy,  but  the  thorns  which  choke 
the  seed  must  be  plucked  up,  or  the  seed  will  perish.  Tares  are  men  ; 
thorns  are  moral  forces  of  doctrine  or  of  life.  The  agitation  in  the  An- 
glican Churches  can  end  only  in  the  victory  of  the  one  tendency  and  the 
silencing  of  the  other,  or  in  the  sundering  of  the  two.  In  Protestant- 
ism nothing  is  harder  than  to  silence,  nothing  easier  than  to  sunder. 


xii  PREFACE. 

If  the  past  history  of  the  Anglican  Church,  hitherto  unvaried  in  the 
ultimate  result,  repeat  itself  here,  the  new  movement  will  end  in  a 
formal  division,  as  it  already  has  in  a  moral  one.  The  trials  of  a 
Church  which  has  taken  a  part  in  our  modern  civilization  and  Christi- 
anity which  entitles  it  to  the  veneration  and  gratitude  of  mankind,  can 
be  regarded  with  indifference  only  by  the  sluggish  and  selfish,  and  with 
malicious  joy  only  by  the  radically  bad. 

The  classification  of  Churches  by  tendencies  is,  of  course,  relative. 
No  great  organization  moves  so  absolutely  along  the  line  of  a  single 
tendency  as  to  have  nothing  in  it  beyond  that  tendency,  or  contradic- 
tory to  it.  The  wilfulness  of  some,  the  feeble-mindedness  of  others, 
the  power  of  surrounding  influences,  modify  all  systems  in  their  actual 
working.  There  was  some  conservatism  in  the  Swiss  reformation,  and 
there  has  been  and  is  something  of  the  reformatory  tendency  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  Reformation  took  out  a  very  large  part  of  the 
best  material  influenced  by  this  tendency  in  Rome,  but  not  all  of  it. 

The  object  of  this  book  is  not  to  delineate  the  spirit  and  doctrines 
of  the  Reformation  as  a  general  movement  over  against  the  doctrinal 
and  practical  errors  of  the  Roman  Church,  but  to  state  and  vindicate 
the  faith  and  spirit  of  that  part  of  the  movement  which  was  conserva- 
tive, as  over  against  the  j^art  which  was  radical.  It  is  the  Lutheran 
Reformation  in  those  features  which  distinguish  it  from  the  Zwinglian 
and  Calvinistic  Reformations,  which  forms  the  topic  of  this  book. 
"Wherever  Calvin  abandoned  Zwinglianism  he  approximated  Lutheran- 
ism.  Hence,  on  important  points,  this  book,  in  defending  Lutheranism 
over  against  Zwinglianism,  defends  Calvinism  over  against  Zwinglian- 
ism also.  It  even  defends  Zwinglianism,  so  far  as,  in  contrast  with  Ana- 
baptism,  it  was  relatively  conservative.  The  Pelagianism  of  the 
Zwinglian  theology  was  corrected  by  Calvin,  who  is  the  true  father 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  as  distinguished  from  the  Lutheran.  The 
theoretical  tendencies  of  Zwingle  developed  into  Arminianism  and  Ra- 
tionalism ;  his  practical  tendencies  into  the  superstitious  anti-ritualism 
of  ultra-Puritanism:  and  both  the  theoretical  and  practical  found  their 
harmony  and  consummation  in  Unitarianism. 

The  plan  of  this  book  is,  in  some  respects,  new.  It  aims  at  bringing 
under  a  single  point  of  view  what  is  usually  scattered  through  different 
classes  of  books.  It  endeavors  to  present  the  Exegesis,  the  Dogmatical 
and  Confessional  development,  and  the  History  associated  with  each 
doctrine,  with  a  full  list  of  the  most  important  writersin  the  literature 
of  each  topic.  Its  rule  is,  whether  the  views  stated  are  accepted  or 
rejected,  to  give  them  in  the  words  of  their  authors.     The  citations 


PREFACE.  xm 

from  other  languages  arc  always  translated,  but  when  the  original 
words  have  a  disputed  meaning,  or  a  special  force  or  importance,  they 
are  also  quoted.  The  author  has,  as  nearly  as  he  was  able,  given  to 
the  book  such  an  internal  completeness  as  to  render  it  unnecessary  to 
refer  to  other  works  while  reading  it.  While  he  has  aimed  at  some- 
thing of  the  thoroughness  which  the  scholar  desires,  he  has  also  en- 
deavored to  meet  the  wants  of  that  important  and  growing  class  of 
readers  who  have  all  the  intelligence  needed  for  a  full  appreciation  of 
the  matter  of  a  book,  but  are  repelled  by  the  technical  difficulties  of 
form  suggested  by  the  pedantry  of  authors,  or  permitted  by  their  care- 
lessness or  indolence. 

So  far  as  the  author's  past  labors  were  available  for  the  purposes  of 
this  work,  he  has  freely  used  them.  In  no  case  has  a  line  been  allowed 
to  stand  which  does  not  express  a  present  conviction,  not  simply  as  to 
what  is  true,  but  as  to  the  force  of  the  grounds  on  which  its  truth  is 
argued.  In  what  has  been  taken  from  his  articles  in  Reviews,  and  in 
other  periodicals,  he  has  changed,  omitted,  and  added,  in  accordance 
wdth  a  fresh  study  of  all  the  topics.  He  has  also  drawn  upon  some  of 
the  Lectures  delivered  by  him  to  his  theological  classes,  and  thankfully 
acknowledges  the  use,  for  this  purpose,  of  the  notes  made  by  his  pupils. 
Rev.  F.  W.  Weiskotten,  of  Elizabethtown,  Pa.,  and  Messrs.  Bieber 
and  Foust.  To  Lloyd  P.  Smith,  Esq.,  Librarian,  and  to  Mr.  George 
M.  Abbot,  Assistant  Librarian,  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Loganian  Li- 
braries, the  author  is  indebted  for  every  possible  facility  in  the  use  of 
those  valuable  collections. 

An  Index  has  been  prepared,  in  which  the  effort  has  been  made  to 
avoid  the  two  generic  vices  of  a  scantiness  which  leaves  the  reader  in 
perplexity,  and  a  minuteness  which  confuses  him. 

The  positions  taken  in  this  book  are  largely  counter,  in  some  respects, 
to  the  prevailing  theology  of  our  time  and  our  land.  No  man  can  be 
more  fixed  in  his  prejudice  against  the  views  here  defended  than  the 
author  himself  once  was  ;  no  man  can  be  more  decided  in  his  opinion  that 
those  views  are  false  than  the  author  is  now  decided  in  his  faith  that  they 
are  the  truth.  They  have  been  formed  in  the  face  of  all  the  influences 
of  education  and  of  bitter  hatred  or  of  contemptuous  disregard  on  the 
part  of  nearly  all  who  were  most  intimately  associated  with  him  in  the 
period  of  struggle.  Formed  under  such  circumstances,  under  what  he  be- 
lieves to  have  been  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Word,  the  author  is  per- 
suaded that  they  rest  upon  grounds  which  cannot  easily  be  moved.  In  its 
own  nature  his  work  is,  in  some  degree,,  polemical ;  but  its  conflict  is 
purely  with  opinions,  never  with  persons.  The  theme  itself,  as  it  involves 


XIV  PREFACE. 

questions  within  our  common  Protestantism,  renders  the  controversy 
principally  one  with  defects  or  errors  in  systems  least  remote  in  the  main 
from  the  faith  vindicated  in  this  volume.  It  is  most  needful  that 
those  nearest  each  other  should  calmly  argue  the  questions  which  still 
divide  them,  as  there  is  most  hope  that  those  already  so  largely  in  af- 
Gnity  may  come  to  a  yet  more  perfect  understanding. 

The  best  work  of  w^hich  isolated  radicalism  is  capable  is  that  of 
destroying  evil.  The  more  earnestly  radicalism  works,  the  sooner  is 
its  mission  accomplished.  Conservatism  works  to  a  normal  condition, 
and  rests  at  last  in  habit.  Radicalism  presupposes  the  abnormal. 
Itself  an  antithesis,  it  dies  with  the  thing  it  kills.  The  long,  fixed 
future  must  therefore  be  in  the  hands  of  conservatism  in  some  shape; 
either  in  the  hands  of  a  mechanical  conservatism,  as  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  or  of  a  reformatory  conservatism,  as  represented  in  that  histori- 
cal and  genuine  Protestantism  which  is  as  distinct  from  the  current 
sectarianism,  in  some  respects,  as  it  is  from  Romanism  in  others.  The 
purest  Protestantism,  that  which  best  harmonizes  conservatism  and 
reformation,  will  ultimately  control  the  thinking  of  the  Christian 
Church.  The  volume  which  the  reader  holds  in  his  hand  is  meant  to 
set  forth  some  of  the  reasons  in  view  of  which  those  who  love  the 
Evangelical  Protestant  Church,  commonly  called  the  Lutheran  Church, 
hope  to  find  pardon  for  their  conviction  that  in  it  is  found  the  most 
perfect  assimilation  and  co-ordination  of  the  two  forces.  It  has  con- 
served as  thoroughly  as  is  consistent  with  real  reformation ;  it  has 
reformed  as  unsparingly  as  is  consistent  with  genuine  conservatism. 
The  objective  concreteness  of  the  old  Apostolic  Catholicity,  Rome  has 
exaggerated  and  materialized  till  the  senses  master  the  soul,  they  should 
serve.  The  subjective  spirituality  of  New  Testament  Christianity  is  iso- 
lated by  the  Pseudo-Protestantism,  which  drags  the  mutilated  organism 
of  the  Church  after  it  as  a  body  of  death  from  which  it  would  fain 
be  delivered,  and  which  it  drops  at  length,  altogether,  to  wander  a  mel- 
ancholy ghost,  or  to  enter  on  the  endless  metempsychosis  of  sectarianism. 
To  distinguish  without  separating,  and  to  combine  without  confusing, 
has  been  the  problem  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  has  distinguished 
between  the  form  of  Christianity  and  the  essence,  but  has  bound  them 
together  inseparably :  the  Reformatory  has  made  sacred  the  individ- 
ual life  and  liberty,  the  Conservative  has  sanctified  the  concrete  order. 
Nor  is  this  claim  extravagant  in  its  own  nature.  No  particular 
Church  has,  on  its  own  showing,  a  right  to  existence,  except  as  it 
believes  itself  to  be  the  most  perfect  form  of  Christianity,  the  form 
which  of  right  should  and  will  be  universal.     No  Church  has  a  right 


PREFACE.  XV 

to  a  part  which  does  not  claim  that  to  it  should  belong  the  whole. 
That  communion  confesses  itself  a  sect  which  aims  at  no  more  than 
abiding  as  one  of  a  number  of  equally  legitimated  bodies.  That 
communion  which  does  not  believe  in  the  certainty  of  the  ultimate 
acceptance  of  its  principles  in  the  whole  world  has  not  the  heart  of  a 
true  Church.  That  which  claims  to  be  Catholic  de  facto  claims  to  be 
Universal  dejure. 

A  true  unity  in  Protestantism  would  be  the  death  of  Popery ;  but 
Popery  will  live  until  those  who  assail  it  are  one  in  their  answer  to  the 
question  :  What  shall  take  its  place  ?  This  book  is  a  statement  and  a 
defence  of  the  answer  given  to  that  question  by  the  communion  under 
whose  banner  the  battle  with  Rome  was  first  fought,  —  under  whose 
leaders  the  greatest  victories  over  Rome  were  won.  If  this  Church  has 
been  a  failure,  it  can  hardly  be  claimed  that  the  Reformation  was  a  suc- 
cess ;  and  if  Protestantism  cannot  come  to  harmony  with  the  principles 
by  which  it  was  created,  as  those  principles  were  understood  by  the 
greatest  masters  in  the  reformatory  work,  it  must  remain  divided  until 
division  reaches  its  natural  end, —  absorption  and  annihilation. 

March  17, 1871. 


CONTENTS 


Art. 

Page 

I. 

1 

II. 

22 

,  III. 

88 

IV. 

112 

V. 

162 

VI. 

201 

VII. 

268 

THE  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION  AND  ITS  THEOLOGF. 

A.  The  Conservative  Reformation  : 

I.  Occasion  and  Cause 

II.   Chief  Organ :  Luther 

III.  Chief  Instrument:  Luther's  Nevi^  Testament  . 

B.  Church  of  the  Conservative  Reformation:  Lutheran  Church 

C.  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Conservative  Reformation   . 
J).  Confession  of  the  Conservative  Reformation  : 

I.  Primary  Confession  :  Augsburg  Confession 
II.  Secondary  Confessions :  Book  of  Concord 

E.  History  and  Doctrines  of  the  Conservative  Reformation ;  Mistakes  Cor- 

rected       VIIL     329 

F.  Specific  Theology  of  the  Conservative  Reformation: 

I.  Original  Sin  (Augsburg  Conf.,  Art,  II.) 

II.  Person  of  Christ  (         "  " 

III.  Baptism  (         '<  " 

IV.  Lord's  Supper       (         "  " 

1.  Thetically  Stated      . 

2.  Antithesis  Considered  . 
8.  Objections  Answered 


xvii 


11.) .    . 

.  IX. 

355 

III.)    . 

X. 

456 

IX.)  .    . 

.  XI. 

518 

X.) 

. 

.   XII. 

585 

. 

XIII. 

664 

. 

.  XIV. 

755 

CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 


J  ,^  COL.COLL. 

THE    KEFORMATION: 

*s.      iN  YORK. 

ITS  OCCASION  AND  r.ATTOP*^..  X 


THE  immediate  occasion  of  the  Reformation  seemed  insignifi- 
cant enough.  Three  hundred  and  fifty-three  years  ago,  on 
the  31st  of  October,  immense  crowds  were  pouring  into  an 
ancient  city  of  Germany,  bearing  in  its  name,  Wittenberg, 
the  memorial  of  its  founder,  Wittekind  the  Younger.  The 
weather-beaten  and  dingy  little  edifices  of  Wittenberg  forbade 
the  idea,  that  the  beauty  of  the  city  or  its  commer-     ^he   day  be- 

'  "^  '^  .  -i-TT*    I,'        fore "  All-Saints' 

cial  importance  drew  the  masses  to  it.     Withm  Day." 

that  city  was  an  old  church,  very  miserable  and  battered,  and 

*  On  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  the  works  following  may  be  consulted: 

Bretschneiuer:  Die  Deutsch.  Reformat.     1855. 

Claude  :  Defence  of  the  Reformation.     Transl.     2  vols.  8vo.     London  :  1815. 

CocHLJEUS  :  Commentaria  de  Act.  et  Scrip.  Lutheri.  1549.  Fol. 

Ctpeian:  Niitzlich.  Urkunden.  z.  Erl.  der  erst.  Reformations -Geschichte. 
Leipz. :  1718.     12mo.     2  Parts. 

D'Aubigne:  Histoire  de  la  Reform.  Par.  :  1835-1838.  (Engl.,  Lond. :  1839. 
New  York:  1841.) 

Forstemann:  Archiv,  f.  d.  Gesch.  d.  K.  Reformation.     Halle:  1831.     8vo. 

Gerdes  :  Introd.  in  historiam.  Ev.  Sec.  XVI.  renov.  4  vols.  4to.  Groning. : 
1744-1752. 

HAaENBACH :  Vorles.  ub.  Wes.  u.  Gesch.  d.  Reformation.     Leipz. :  1839.  Svo. 

Junius  :  Compend.  Seckendorf.  (1755)— Reform.  Gesch.  in  Auszug.  v.  Roos. 
Tub. :  1788.     2  vols.  8vo. 

Keyser:   Reformat.  Almanach.     Erf.    4  vols.  12mo.     1817-1821. 

Mai:  Hist.  Reformat.     Frankf. :  1710.     4to. 

Maimbouro:  Hist.  du.  Lutheranism.     Par. :  1680.     4to. 

1  » 


2  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

very  venerable  and  holy,  which  attracted  these  crowds.  It  was 
the  "Church  of  all  Saints,"  in  w^hich  were  shown,  to  the  in- 
expressible delight  of  the  faithful,  a  fragment  of  l!Toah's  Ark, 
some  soot  from  the  furnace  into  which  the  three  young  He- 
brews were  cast,  a  piece  of  wood  from  the  crib  of  the  infant 
Saviour,  some  of  St.  Christopher's  beard,  and  nineteen  thou- 
sand other  relics  equally  genuine  and  interesting.  But  over  and 
above  all  these  allurements,  so  well  adapted  to  the  taste  of 
the  time.  His  Holiness,  the  Pope,  had  granted  indulgence  to 
all  who  should  visit  the  church  on  the  first  of  ISTovember. 
Against  the  door  of  that  church  of  dubious  saints,  and  dubi- 
ous relics,  and  dubious  indulgences,  was  found  fastened,  on 
that  memorable  morning,  a  scroll  unrolled.  The  writing  on  it 
was  firm  ;  the  nails  which  held  it  were  well  driven  in;  the  sen- 
timents it  conveyed  were  moderate,  yet  very  decided.  The 
material,  parchment,  was  the  same  which  long  ago  had  held 
words  of  redemption  above  the  head  of  the  Redeemer.  The 
contents  w^ere  an  amplification  of  the  old  theme  of  glory  — 
Christ  on  the  cross,  the  only  King.  The  Magna  Charta,  which 
had  been  buried  beneath  the  Pope's  throne,  reappeared  on  the 
church  door.  The  keynote  of  the  Reformation  was  struck  full 
and  clear  at  the  beginning.  Salvation  through  Christ  alone. 

It  is  from  the  nailing  up  of  these  Theses  the  Reformation 
takes  its  date.   That  act  became,  in  the  providence  of  God,  the 

Maimbourq:   Hist.  du.  Calvinisme.     Par.:   1682.     4to. 

Mariieinkke:  Gescb.  d.  Teutsch.  Reform.     Berl. :    1831.     4  vols.  12mo. 

Myconius:   Hist.   Reformat.  Cyprian.     Leipz, :  1718.     12mo. 

Neudecker:  Gescli.  d.  Evang.  Protestantism.     Leipz.:   1844.     2  vols.  8vo. 

Ranke  :  Deutsch.  Gesch.  im  Zeitalt.  d.  Reformat.  Berl. :  1839.  3  vols.  8vo. 
(Transl.  by  Sarah  Austin.)     Philad.  :   1844.     8vo. 

ScuLTETUS  :  Kirchen.  Reformat,  in  Teutschl.  d.  Guolfium.    Heidelb. :  1618.  4to. 

Seckendorf:  Lutheranism.     Leipz.:   1694.     Fol.     Deutsch.  1714.     4to. 

Sleidan  :  de  Stat,  relig.  et  reipub.  (1557.  8vo.)  Boehme  am  Ende.  Frankf. 
a.  M.  :  1785-86.    3  vols.  8vo. 

Spalatin:*  Annales   Reformat.  (Cyprian.)     Leipz.:   1718.      12mo. 

Tentzel:   Reformat.   Lutheri  (Cyprian.)     Leipz.:  1718.    12mo. 

Von  Seelen:   Stromata  Lutherana.      Liibeck:    1740.     12mo. 

ViLLERs:  Ess.  sur  I'dsprit  et  I'influ.  d.  1.  Reformat,  de  Luth.  Par.:  3d.  ed. 
1808.  8vo.  Ubers  von  Cramer,  mit  vorred.  v.  Henke.  2d.  ed.  Hamb. :  1828. 
2  Parts.   12mo. 

Waddinqton:   Reformat,  on  the  Contin.     Lond. :  1841.     3  vols.  8vo. 


THE    DAY   BEFORE    ''ALL    SAIXTS'    DAY."  3 

Btarting-point  of  tlie  work  wliicli  still  goes  on,  and  shall  for- 
ever go  on,  that  glorious  work  in  which  the  truth  was  raised 
to  its  original  purity,  and  civil  and  religious  liherty  were  re- 
stored to  men.  That  the  Reformation  is  the  spring  of  modern 
freedom,  is  no  wild  assertion  of  its  friends.  One  of  the  great- 
est Roman  Catholic  writers  of  recent  times,  Michelet,  in  the 
Introduction  to  his  Life  of  Luther,  says :  "  It  is  not  incor- 
rect to  say,  that  Luther  has  been  the  restorer  of  liberty  in 
modern  times.  If  he  did  not  create,  he  at  least  courageously 
affixed  his  signature  to  that  great  revolution  which  rendered 
the  right  of  examination  lawful  in  Europe.  And,  if  we  exer- 
cise, in  all  its  plenitude  at  this  day,  this  first  and  highest 
privilege  of  human  intelligence,  it  is  to  him  we  are  most  in- 
debted for  it ;  nor  can  we  think,  speak,  or  write,  without  being 
made  conscious,  at  every  step,  of  the  immense  benefit  of  this 
intellectual  enfranchisement ;  "  and  he  concludes  with  the  re- 
mark :  "  To  whom  do  I  owe  the  power  of  publishing  what  I 
am  now  inditing,  except  to  this  liberator  of  modern  thought?  " 
Our  Church,  as  clearly,  in  one  sense,  the  mother  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, as,  in  another,  she  is  its  offspring,  the  first,  and  for  a 
time,  the  exclusive  possessor  of  the  name  Protestantism,  its 
source  and  its  mightiest  bulwark,  our  Church  has  wisely  set 
apart  a  day  in  each  year  to  comm.em orate  this  great  deliver- 
ance, and  wisely  has  kept  her  great  Jubilees.  There  are  other 
ways  of  noting  time,  besides  by  its  loss.  The  Church  Festi- 
vals note  it  by  its  gains,  the  Church  Year  marks  the  time  which 
has  been  redeemed  for  ever.  An  old  writer  describes  the 
Church  of  All-Saints  at  Wittenberg,  as  a  manger,  where  in  his 
lowly  glory  the  Son  of  God  was  born  again.  Blessed  forever  be 
the  day !  On  it,  through  all  time,  men  shall  gather,  bringing 
their  offerings  of  praise  ;  remembering,  treasuring,  and  keep- 
ing untarnished,  the  holy  faith  whose  restoration  was  thus 
begun. 

It  is  well,  then,  to  have  added  to  the  grand  order  of  the 
Church  Year,  the  Festival  of  the  Reformation,  and  to  the 
revolution  of  the  centuries,  its  Jubilee.  Whether  as  the  child 
or  as  the  parent  of  the  Reformation,  whether  she  would  awake 
her  heart  to  gratitude  as  its  daughter,  or  arouse  herself  to  an 


4  CONSERVATIVE    BEFORMATIOK 

et  /"nest  sense  of  responsibility  as  its  mother,  our  Church  can 
claim  it,  as  pre-eminently  her  privilege,  and  acknowledge  it  as 
pre-eminently  her  duty  so  to  do.  When  the  Festival  of  the 
Reformation  shall  come  and  shall  wake  no  throb  of  joy  in  her 
bosom,  her  life  will  have  fled.  For  if  the  Reformation  lives 
through  her,  she  also  lives  by  it.  It  has  to  her  the  mysterious 
relation  of  Christ  to  David  ;  if  it  is  her  offspring,  it  is  also  her 
root.  If  she  watched  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  the  ark  of  the 
Lord  protected  and  blessed  her,  and  when  it  passes  from  her 
keeping  her  glory  will  have  departed.  Let  her  speak  to  her 
children  then,  and  tell  them  the  meaning  of  the  day.  In  the 
pulpit,  and  the  school,  and  the  circle  of  the  home,  let  these 
great  memories  of  men  of  God,  of  their  self-sacrifice,  of  their 
overcoming  faith,  and  of  their  glorious  w^ork,  be  the  theme 
of  thought,  and  of  word,  and  of  thanksgiving.  The  Festival 
of  the  Reformation  is  at  once  a  day  of  Christmas  and  of  Eas- 
ter and  of  Pentecost,  in  our  Church  year ;  a  day  of  birth,  a 
day  of  resurrection,  a  day  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Let  its  return  renew  that  life,  and  make  our  Church 
press  on  with  fresh  vigor  in  the  steps  of  her  risen  Lord,  as 
one  begotten  again,  and  born  from  the  dead,  by  the  quicken- 
ing power  of  the  Spirit  of  her  God.  Let  every  day  be  a  Fes- 
tival of  the  Reformation,  and  every  year  a  Jubilee. 

The  occasions  and  cause  of  so  w^onderful  and  important  an 
Specific  occasion  nnd  cvcut   as   thc   Rcformation  have    naturally  oc- 

cause  ot  the  Refor-  .  iti  i  pit* 

niation.  cupicd   vcry   largely  the  thoughts  ot    both    its 

friends  and  its  foes.  On  the  part  of  its  enemies  the  solution 
of  its  rapid  rise,  its  gigantic  growth,  its  overwhelming  march, 
has  been  found  by  some  in  the  rancor  of  monkish  malice  —  the 
thing  arose  in  a  squabble  between  two  sets  of  friars,  about  the 
farming  of  the  indulgences  —  a  solution  as  sapient  and  as  com- 
pletely in  harmony  with  the  facts  as  would  be  the  statement 
that  the  American  Revolution  w^as  gotten  up  by  one  George 
Washington,  w^ho,  angry  that  the  British  Government  refused 
to  make  him  a  collector  of  the  tax  on  tea,  stirred  up  a  happy 
people  to  rebellion  against  a  mild  and  just  rule. 

The  solution  has  been  found  by  others  in  the  lust  of  the 
human  heart  for  chauE^e  —  it  was  beojotten  in  the  mere  love 


SPECIFIC    OCCASION   AND    CAUSE.  5 

of  novelty ;  men  went  into  the  Reformation  as  they  go  into  a 
menagerie,  or  adopt  the  new  mode,  or  buy  up  some  "novel- 
ist's last."  Another  class,  among  whom  the  Lrilliant  French 
Jesuit,  Audin,  is  conspicuous,  attribute  the  movement  mainly 
to  the  personal  genius  and  fascinating  audacity  of  the  great 
leader  in  the  movement.  Luther  so  charmed  the  millions 
with  his  marvellous  speech  and  magic  style,  that  they  were 
led  at  his  will.  On  the  part  of  some,  its  nominal  friends, 
reasons  hardly  more  adequate  have  often  been  assigned.  Con- 
founding the  mere  aids,  or  at  most,  the  mere  occasions  of  the 
Reformation  with  its  real  causes,  an  undue  importance  has 
been  attributed  in  the  production  of  it  to  the  progress  of  the 
arts  and  sciences  after  the  revival  of  letters.  Much  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  the  invention  of  printing,  and  the  discovery  of 
America,  which  tended  to  rouse  the  minds  of  men  to  a  new 
life.  Much  has  been  said  of  the  fermenting  political  discon- 
tents of  the  day,  the  influence  of  the  great  Councils  in  dimin- 
ishing the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  much  has  been  made,  in 
general,  of  the  causes  whose  root  is  either  wholly  or  in  part 
in  the  earth.  The  Rationalist  represents  the  Reformation  as  a 
triumph  of  reason  over  authority.  The  Infidel  says,  that  its 
power  was  purely  negative ;  it  was  a  grand  subversion ;  it  was 
mightier  than  Rome,  because  it  believed  less  than  Rome ;  it 
prevailed,  not  by  what  it  taught,  but  by  what  it  denied ;  and 
it  failed  of  universal  triumph  simply  because  it  did  not  deny 
everything.  The  insect-minded  sectarian  allows  the  Reforma- 
tion very  little  merit  except  as  it  prepared  the  way  for  the 
putting  forth,  in  due  time,  of  the  particular  twig  of  Protest- 
antism on  which  he  crawls,  and  which  he  imagines  bears  all 
the  fruit,  and  gives  all  the  value  to  the  tree.  As  the  little 
green  tenants  of  the  rose-bush  might  be  supposed  to  argue 
that  the  rose  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  them 
a  home  and  food,  so  these  small  speculators  find  the  root  of 
the  Reformation  in  the  particular  part  of  Providence  which 
they  consent  to  adopt  and  patronize.  The  Reformation,  as 
they  take  it,  originated  in  the  divine  plan  for  furnishing  a 
nursery  for  sectarian  Aphides. 

But  we  must  have  causes  which,  however  feeble,  are  adapted 


6  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

to  the  effects.  A  little  fire  indeed  kindleth  a  great  matter, 
but  however  little,  it  must  be  genuine  fire.  Frost  will  not  do, 
and  a  painting  of  flame  will  not  do,  though  the  pencil  of 
Raphael  produced  it.  A  little  hammer  may  break  a  great 
rock,  but  that  which  breaks  must  be  harder  and  more  tena- 
cious than  the  thing  broken.  There  must  be  a  hand  to  apply 
the  fire,  and  air  to  fan  it ;  it  must  be  rightly  placed  within 
the  material  to  be  kindled  ;  it  must  be  kept  from  being  smoth- 
ered. And  yet  all  aids  do  but  enable  it  to  exercise  its  own 
nature,  and  it  alone  kindles.  There  must  be  a  hand  to  wield 
the  hammer,  and  a  heart  to  move  tbe  hand  ;  the  rock  must 
be  struck  with  vigor,  but  the  hammer  itself  is  indispensable. 
God  used  instruments  to  apply  the  fire  and  wield  the  hammer ; 
His  providence  prepared  the  way  for  the  burning  and  the 
breaking.  And  yet  there  was  but  one  agency,  by  which  they 
could  be  brought  to  pass.  Do  we  ask  what  was  the  agency 
which  was  needed  to  kindle  the  flame  ?  What  was  it,  that 
was  destined  to  give  the  stroke  whose  crash  filled  earth  with 
wonder,  and  hell  with  consternation,  and  heaven  with  joy  ? 
God  himself  asks  the  question,  so  that  it  becomes  its  own 
answer :  "  Is  not  My  Word  like  as  a  fire  ?  Is  not  My  Word 
like  the  hammer  which  breaks  the  rock  in  pieces  ? " 

It  is  not  without  an  aim  that  the  Word  of  God  is  presented 
in  the  language  we  have  just  quoted,  under  two  images  ;  as 
fire  and  as  a  hammer.  The  fire  is  a  type  of  its  inward  efii- 
eacy;  the  hammer,  of  its  outward  work.  The  one  image 
shows  how  it  acts  on  those  who  admit  it,  the  other  how  it 
cftects  those  who  harden  themselves  against  it ;  the  one  sym- 
bolizes the  persuasive  fervor  of  that  Word  by  which  it  makes 
our  hearts  burn  within  us  in  love  to  the  Son  of  God,  the  other 
is  an  image  of  the  energy  with  which,  in  the  hands  of  the 
King  on  the  holy  hill  of  Zion,  it  breaks  the  opposers  as  with 
a  rod  of  iron.  The  fire  symbolizes  the  energy  of  the  Word 
as  a  Gospel,  which  draws  the  heart  to  God,  the  hammer  sha- 
dows forth  its  energy  as  a  law  which  reveals  the  terrors  of 
God's  justice  against  transgressors.  In  both  these  grand 
aspects  the  Word  of  God  was  the  creator  of  the  Reformation 
and  its  mis-htiest  instrument.     It  aroused  the  workers,  and 


THE   BIBLE   IN    THE   MIDDLE  AGES.  7 

fitted  them  for  their  work  ;  it  opened  hlind  eyes,  and  subdued 
stubborn  hearts.  The  Reformation  is  its  work  and  its  trophy. 
However  manifold  the  occasions  of  the  Reformation,  the 
"Word,  under  God,  was  its  cause. 

The  Word  of  God  kindled  the  fire  of  the  Reformation. 
That  Word  lay  smouldering  under  the  ashes  of  ti.o  vmc  in 
centuries;  it  broke  forth  into  flame,  in  Luther  the  Middle  Age*. 
and  the  other  Reformers ;  it  rendered  them  lights  which 
shone  and  burnt  inextinguishably  ;  through  them  it  imparted 
itself  to  the  nations  ;  and  from  the  nations  it  purged  away  the 
dross  which  had  gathered  for  ages.  ''  The  Word  of  God," 
says  St.  Paul,  "is  not  bound."  Through  the  centuries  which 
followed  the  corruption  of  Christianity,  the  Word  of  God  was 
still  in  being.  In  lonely  cloisters  it  was  laboriously  copied. 
Years  were  sometimes  spent  in  finishing  a  single  copy  of  it, 
in  the  elaborate  but  half  barbaric  beauty  which  suited  the 
taste  of  those  times.  Gold  and  jewels,  on  the  massive  covers, 
decorated  the  rich  workmanship  ;  costly  pictures  were  painted 
as  ornaments  on  its  margin  ;  the  choicest  vellum  was  used  for 
the  copies  ;  the  rarest  records  of  heathen  antiquity  were  some- 
times erased  to  make  way  for  the  nobler  treasures  of  the  Ora- 
cles of  the  Most  High.  There  are  single  copies  of  the  Word, 
from  that  mid-world  of  history,  which  are  a  store  of  art,  and 
the  possession  of  one  of  which  gives  a  bibliographical  renown 
to  the  city  in  whose  library  it  is  preserved. 

]S"o  interdict  was  yet  laid  upon  the  reading  of  the  Word, 
for  none  was  necessary.  The  scarcity  and  costliness  of  books 
formed  in  themselves  a  barrier  more  eflfectual  than  the  in- 
terdict of  popes  and  councils.  Many  of  the  great  teachers 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  .were  devoted  students  of  the  Bible. 
From  the  earliest  writings  of  the  Fathers,  down  to  the  Refor- 
mation, there  is  an  unbroken  line  of  witnesses  for  the  right 
of  all  believers  freely  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures.  JS'o  man 
thought  of  putting  an  artificial  limitation  on  its  perusal  ;  on 
the  contrary,  there  are  expressions  of  regret  in  the  mediaeval 
Catholic  writers  that,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  so  few  could 
have  access  to  these  precious  records. 

In  communities  separate  from   the  Church  of  Rome,  the 


S  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

truth  was  maintained  by  reading  and  teaching  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. The  Albigensian  and  Waldensian  martyrs,  were  mar- 
tyrs of  the  Word : 

'*  Those  slaughtered  saints  whose  bones 
Lie  scattered  on  the  Alpine  mountains  cold, 
Even  those  who  kept  God's  truth  so  pure  of  old, 
When  all  our  fathers  worshipped  stocks  and  stones." 

The  invention  of  printing,  and  hardly  less,  the  invention  of 
paper  made  from  rags  —  for  what  would  printing  be  worth, 
if  we  were  still  confined  to  so  costly  a  material  for  books  as 
parchment  —  prepared  the  way  for  the  diffusion  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, 

The  Church  of  Rome  did  not  apprehend  the  danger  which 
lay  in  that  Book.  Previous  to  the  Eeformation  there  were 
not  only  editions  of  the  Scripture  in  the  originals,  but  the  old 
Church  translation  into  Latin  (the  Vulgate)  and  versions  from 
it  into  the  living  languages  were  printed.  In  Spain,  whose 
dark  opposition  to  the  Word  of  God  has  since  become  her 
reproach  and  her  curse,  and  in  which  no  such  book  as  the  one 
of  which  we  are  about  to  speak  has  come  forth  for  centuries, 
in  Spain,  more  than  a  hundred  years  before  there  was  enough 
Hebrew  type  in  all  England  to  print  three  consecutive  lines, 
the  first  great  Polyglot  Bible,  in  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  Greek, 
and  Latin,  was  issued  at  Complutum  under  the  direction  of 
Ximenes,  her  renowned  cardinal  and  chief  minister  of  state. 
It  came  forth  in  a  form  which,  in  splendor  and  value,  far  sur- 
passed all  that  the  world  had  yet  seen.  We  may  consider  the 
Complutensian  Polyglot,  the  crown  of  glory  to  the  labors  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  It  links  itself  clearly  in  historical  connec- 
tion with  the  Grand  Biblical  Era,  the  Reformation  itself, 
for  though  the  printing  of  it  was  begun  in  1502,  and  finished 
in  1517,  it  was  not  published  till  1522,  and  in  1522,  the  first 
EDITION  OF  the  New  TESTAMENT,  in  German,  came  from  the 
hand  of  Luther,  fixing  the  corner-stone  of  the  grand  edifice, 
whose  foundation  had  been  laid  in  the  Xinety-five  Theses  of 
1517. 

This,  then,  is  the  historical  result  of  the  facts  we  have  pre- 


WHERE    THE    BIBLE    FELL    OPEN.  9 

sen  ted,  that  the  Middle  Ages  became,  in  the  wonderful  provi- 
dence  of  God,  the  conservators  of  the  Word  which  they  are 
charged  with  suppressing ;  and  w^ere  unconsciously  tending 
toward  the  sunrise  of  the  truth,  which  was  to  melt  away 
their  mists  forever. 

The  earliest  efforts  of  the  press  were  directed  to  the  multi- 
plication of  the  copies  of  the  Word  of  God.  The  wi.ero  the  Bibie 
first  book  ever  printed,  was  the  Bible.  Before  the  ^'"  "p""' 
first  twelve  sheets  of  this  first  edition  of  the  Scriptures  were 
printed,  Gutenberg  and  Faust  had  incurred  an  expenditure 
of  four  thousand  florins.  That  Bible  was  the  edition  of  the 
Latin  Yulgate,  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  the  "  Maza- 
rin  Bible,"  from  the  fact  that  a  copy  of  it  which  for  some 
time  was  the  only  one  known,  was  discovered  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  eighteenth  century  in  the  Library  of  the  College  of 
the  Four  [N'ations,  founded  at  Paris  by  Cardinal  Mazarin. 
At  Mentz  and  Cologne,  the  Yulgate  translation  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  was  multiplied  in  editions  of  various  sizes.  Some 
of  these  Latin  Bibles  had  been  purchased  for  the  University 
Library  at  Erfurth  at  a  large  price,  and  were  rarely  shown 
even  to  visitors.  One  of  them  was  destined  to  play  a  memor- 
able part  in  the  history  of  mankind.  While  it  was  lying  in 
the  still  niche  of  the  Library,  there  moved  about  the  streets 
of  the  city  and  through  the  halls  of  the  University,  a  student 
of  some  eighteen  years  of  age,  destined  for  the  law",  who 
already  gave  evidence  of  a  genius  which  might  have  been  a 
snare  to  indolence,  but  who  devoted  himself  to  study  with  an 
unquenchable  ardor.  Among  the  dim  recesses  of  the  Library, 
he  was  a  daily  seeker  for  knowledge.  His  was  a  thirst  for 
truth  which  was  not  satisfied  with  the  prescribed  routine. 
Those  books  of  which  we  now  think  as  venerable  antiques, 
w^ere  then  young  and  fresh  —  the  glow  of  novelty  was  on 
much  of  which  we  now  speak  as  the  musty  and  worm-eaten 
record  of  old-time  wisdom  which  we  have  outgrown.  There 
the  city  of  Harlem,  through  Laurentius,  and  the  city  of  Mentz, 
through  Faustus,  and  the  city  of  Strasburg,  through  Guten- 
berg, put  in  their  silent  claims  for  the  glory  of  being  the  cra- 
dle of  the  magic  art  of  printing.     There  the  great  masters  in 


10  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

jurisprudence  and  in  scholastic  philosophy  challenged,  and 
not  in  vain,  the  attention  of  the  young  searcher  for  knowl- 
edsre.  Some  of  the  most  voluminous  of  the  Jurisconsults  he 
could  recite  almost  word  for  word.  Occam  and  Gerson  were 
his  favorites  among  the  scholastics.  The  masters  of  the  clas- 
sic world,  Cicero,  Virgil  and  Livy,  "  he  read,"  says  a  Jesuit 
author,  "  not  merely  as  a  student  whose  aim  was  to  under- 
stand them,  but  as  a  superior  intellect,  which  sought  to  draw 
from  them  instruction,  to  lind  in  them  counsels  and  maxims 
for  his  after  life.  They  were  to  him  the  flowers  whose  sweet 
odor  might  be  shed  upon  the  path  he  had  to  tread,  or  might 
calm  the  future  agitation  of  his  mind  and  of  his  heart."  Thus 
passing  from  volume  to  volume,  seeking  the  solution  of  the 
dark  problem  of  human  life,  which  already  gathered  heavily 
upon  his  deep,  earnest  soul,  he  one  day  took  down  a  ponderous 
volume  hitherto  unnoticed.  He  opens  it  ;  the  title-page  is 
"  Biblia  Sacra"  —  the  Holy  Bible.  He  is  disappointed.  He 
has  heard  all  this,  he  thinks,  in  the  lessons  of  the  Missal,  in 
the  texts  of  the  Postils,  in  the  selections  of  the  Breviary.  He 
imagines  that  his  mother,  the  Church,  has  incorporated  the 
whole  Book  of  God  in  her  services.  Listlessly  he  allows  the 
volume  to  fall  open  at  another  place,  in  his  hand,  and  carelessly 
looks  down  at  the  page.  What  is  it  that  arouses  him  ?  His 
eye  kindles  with  amazement  and  intense  interest.  He  rests 
the  Book  on  the  pile  of  the  works  of  Schoolmen  and  of  Fathers 
which  he  has  been  gathering.  He  hangs  entranced  over  it ; 
his  dreamy  eyes  are  fixed  on  the  page  ;  hour  after  hour  flies  ; 
the  shades  of  night  begin  to  gather,  and  he  is  forced  to  lay 
the  volume  aside,  with  the  sigh,  0,  that  this  Book  of  books 
might  one  day  be  mine  1 

Was  it  accident,  or  was  it  of  God,  that  this  Book  opened 
where  it  did  ?  Could  we  have  arranged  the  providence,  where 
would  we  have  had  the  Book  to  open?  It  opened  at  the  first 
chapter  of  First  Samuel,  the  simple  story  of  Hannah  conse- 
crating her  boy  to  the  Lord.  There  are  many  parts  of  the 
Bible  as  precious  as  this  ;  with  reverence  we  speak  it,  there 
are  some  more  precious,  "  for  one  star  diflereth  from  another 
Btar  in  glory,"  though  God  made  them  all.     Why  opened  not 


WHERE    THE   BIBLE   FELL    OPEN.  11 

that  BGok  at  some  of  the  most  glorious  revelations  of  the  New 
Testament?  This  might  have  been,  and  who  shall  say  what 
incalciihible  loss  it  might  have  wrought  to  the  world,  had  it 
been  so  ?  For  this  very  portion  might  have  been  one  of  the 
Epistles,  or  Gospels,  or  Lessons  of  the  Romish  Service,  and  thus 
might  have  confirmed  the  false  impression  of  the  young  man 
that  he  already  knew  all  the  Bible.  This  was  a  critical  period 
of  Luther's  life.  Already  was  his  mind  tending  to  an  absorp- 
tion in  studies  which  would  have  given  a  wholly  different  cast 
to  his  life.  The  sound  of  a  drum  upon  the  street  was  the 
turnhig  point  of  the  spiritual  life  of  an  English  nobleman.  It 
lifted  him  from  his  knees,  and  drew  him  again  into  the  full 
march  upon  everlasting  death.  On  what  little  things  may 
God  have  been  pleased  to  hang  the  great  impulses  of  the  man, 
who  proved  himself  capable  of  leading  the  Reformation,  and 
who,  but  for  these  little  things,  might  have  been  lost  to  the 
world.  Nothing  in  God's  hand  is  trifling.  The  portion  on 
which  Luther's  eye  fell  was  not  in  the  Church  Service.  It 
quickened  him  at  once  with  a  new  sense  of  the  fulness  of  God's 
Word.  In  a  double  sense  it  stood  before  him,  as  a  revelation. 
His  eyes  were  opened  on  the  altar  of  that  inextinguishable 
fire,  from  which  a  few  sparks  had  risen  into  the  Romish 
Ritual,  and  had  drifted  along  on  the  night-breezes  of  the  ages. 
Did  the  angel  of  the  Covenant  with  invisible  hand  open  that 
page,  or  was  it  a  breath  of  air  from  some  lattice  near  at  hand? 
It  matters  not  —  God  opened  the  Book. 

That  Book  was  to  Luther,  henceforth,  the  thing  of  beauty 
of  his  life,  the  joy  of  his  soul  forever.  He  read  and  re-read, 
and  prayed  over  its  sacred  teachings,  till  the  place  of  each  pas- 
sage, and  all  memorable  passages  in  their  places  fixed  them- 
selves in  his  memory.  To  the  study  of  it,  all  other  study 
seemed  tame.  A  single  passage  of  it  would  ofttimes  lie  in  his 
thoughts  days  and  nights  together.  The  Bible  seemed  to  fuse 
itself  into  his  being,  to  become  a  part  of  his  nature.  Often  in 
his  writings  he  does  not  so  much  remark  upon  it,  as  catch  its 
very  pulse  and  clothe  his  own  mind  in  its  very  garb.  He  is 
lifted  to  the  glory  of  the  reproducer  —  and  himself  becomes  a 
secondary  prophet  and  apostle.     His  soul  ceased  to  be  a  mere 


12  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

vessel  to  hold  a  little  of  the  living  water,  and  became  a  foun- 
tain through  which  it  sprang  to  refresh  and  gladden  others. 
As  with   Luther,  so  was  it  with  Melanchthon,  his  noble  co- 
worker, with  Zwingle  in  Switzerland,  at  a  later  period  with 
Calvin  in  France,  with  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  in  England,  with 
Knox  in  Scotland.     The  AVord  of  God  was  the  fire  in  their 
souls  which  purified  them  into  Christians  —  and  the  man  who 
became  a  Christian  was  already  unconsciously  a  Reformer. 
The  fire  which  the  "Word  of  God  kindled  in  the  Reformers 
they  could  not  long   conceal.     "They  believed  — 
therefore  they  spoke."     One  of  the  first,  as  it  was 
one  of  the  greatest,  revelations  of  the  revived  power  of  the  Word 
of  God,  was,  that  it  sought  an  audience  for  itself  before  the  peo- 
ple, in  their  own  language.     Every  new  Pentecost  revives  the 
miracle  and  wonder  of  the  first  Pentecost :  men  marvelling,  say 
of  the  apostles  to  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  has  again  given  utter- 
ance :  "  We  do  hear  them  speak  in  our  tongues  the  wonder- 
ful works  of  God."    Foremost  in  this  imperishable  work  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century,  was  the  man  who  was  first  and  chief  in 
more  works,  and  in  greater  ones,  than  ever  fell  to  any  of  our 
race,  in  the  ordinary  vocation  of  God.     Great  monuments  has 
the  Sixteenth  Century  left  us  of  the  majesty  revealed  by  the 
human  mind,  when  its  noblest  powers  are  disciplined  by  study, 
and  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of  God.     Great  are  the  legacies  of 
doctrinal,  polemical,  historical  and  confessional  divinity  which 
that  century  has  left  us.     Immortal  are  its  confessions,  its  de- 
votional, practical,  hymnological  and  liturgical  labors.    It  w^as 
the  century  of  Melanchthon's  Loci  and  of  Calvin's  Instituted, 
of  the  Examen  of  Chemnitz,  and  the  Catalogus  Testium  of 
Flaccius,  and  of  the  Magdeburg  Centuries.    Its  confessions  are 
still  the  centres  of  great  communions,  its  hymns  are  still  sung 
by  devout  thousands,  its  forms  still  mould  the  spirit  of  v\''or- 
ship  among  millions.     But  its  grandest  achievement  was  the 
giving  of  the  Bible  to  the  nations,  and  the  centre  and  throne 
of  this  achievement  is  Luther's  Translation  of  the  Bible,  the 
greatest  single  work  ever   accomplished  by  man   in  the  de- 
partment  of  theological   literature.     The   Word  of  God,   in 
whole  or  in  part,  has  been  translated  into  several  hundred  of 


LUTHER'S    BIBLE.  13 

the  dialects  of  our  race.  Many  of  these  translations,  as  for  ex- 
ample the  Septuagint,  the  Vulgate,  and  our  own  authorized 
version,  have  great  historical  significance ;  hut  in  its  historical 
connections  and  significance,  Luther's  is  incomparahly  most 
important  of  all.  Had  it  heen  his  sole  lahor,  the  race  could 
never  forget  his  name. 

Never  were  a  greater  need  and  the  fittest  agent  to  meet  it, 
so  brought  together  as  in  the  production  of  this  translation. 
One  of  the  earliest  convictions  of  Luther  was,  the  people  must 
have  the  Bible,  and  to  this  end  it  must  be  translated.  It  is 
true,  that  beginning  with  the  Gothic  translation  of  Ulphilas, 
in  the  fourth  century,  there  had  been  various  translations  of 
the  Scriptures  into  the  Germanic  tongues.  About  1466,  ap- 
peared the  first  Bible,  printed  in  German.  It  came  from  the 
press  of  Eggesteyn,  in  Strasburg,  (not  as  has  been  frequently 
maintained,  from  the  press  of  Faust  and  SchofFer,  in  1462.) 
Between  the  appearance  of  this  Bible  and  that  of  Luther,  there 
were  issued  in  the  dialect  of  Upper  Germany  some  fourteen 
editions  of  the  Word  of  God,  beside  several  in  the  dialect  of 
Lower  Germany.  These  were,  without  exception,  translations 
of  a  translation  ;  they  were  made  from  the  Yulgate,  and,  how- 
ever they  may  have  differed,  they  had  a  common  character 
which  may  be  expressed  in  a  word  —  they  were  abominable. 
In  a  copy  of  one  of  them,  in  the  library  of  the  writer  of  this 
article,  there  is  a  picture  of  the  Deluge,  in  which  mermaids 
are  floating  around  the  ark,  arranging  their  tresses  with  the 
aid  of  small  looking-glasses,  with  a  most  amphibious  non- 
chalance. The  rendering  is  about  as  true  to  the  idea,  as  the 
picture  is  to  nature.  There  is  another  of  these  editions,  re- 
markable for  typographical  errors,  which  represents  Eve,  not 
as  a  house-wife,  but  as  a  "  kiss-wife,"  and  its  typograph}^  is 
the  best  part  of  it.  IIow  Luther  raised  what  seemed  a  bar- 
barous jargon  into  a  language,  which,  in  flexible  beauty, 
and  power  of  internal  combination,  has  no  parallel  but  in  the 
Greek,  and  in  massive  vigor  no  superior  but  the  English, 
writers  of  every  school,  Protestant  and  Romish  alike,  have 
loved  to  tell.  The  language  of  Germany  has  grown  since 
Luther,  but  it  has  had  no  new  creation.    He  who  takes  up  Lu- 


14  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

ther's  Bible  grasps  a  whole  world  in  his  hand  —  a  world  which 
will  perish  only,  when  this  green  earth  itself  shall  pass  away. 

In  all  lands  in  which  the  battle  of  the  Reformation  was 
fought,  the  Bible  furnished  banner,  armor,  and 
The  Only  KuK".  ^^.^^g^  j"^  \Y2i^^  iudced,  morc  than  ensign,  more  than 
ehield,  more  than  sword,  for  "  the  Word  of  God  is  quick  and 
powerful,  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sw^ord,  piercing  even  to 
the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and 
marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart."  The  Word  of  God  opened  the  eyes  of  the  Reformers 
to  the  existing  corruptions ;  it  called  them  forth  from  Babylon ; 
it  revealed  to  them  the  only  source  of  healing  for  the  sick  and 
wounded  Church  ;  it  inspired  them  with  ardor  for  their  holy 
work ;  it  lifted  them  above  the  desire  for  man's  favor,  and  the 
fear  of  man's  face.  The  Bible  made  them  confessors,  and  pre- 
pared them  to  be  martyrs. 

The  Reformers  knew  where  their  strength  lay.  They  felt 
that  what  had  redeemed  them  could  alone  redeem  the  Churcli. 
They  saw  that,  under  God,  their  ability  to  sustain  their  cause 
depended  on  His  Word.  The  supreme  and  absolute  authority 
of  God's  Word  in  determining  all  questions  of  doctrine  and  of 
duty,  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Reformation  —  a  prin- 
ciple so  fundamental,  that  without  it,  there  would  have  been 
no  Reformation — and  so  vital,  that  a  Reformation  without  it, 
could  such  a  Reformation  be  supposed,  would  have  been  at 
best  a  glittering  delusion  and  failure. 

It  is  true,  that  there  was  testimony  from  human  sources, 
which  was  not  without  value,  in  its  right  place,  in  the  con- 
troversy with  Rome.  In  a  certain  sense,  her  condemnation 
had  already  been  anticipated  by  her  own  lips.  In  the  long- 
gone  days  of  her  purity,  the  Church  of  Rome  had  men  of  God, 
who  held  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Thirty  years 
after  our  Lord's  Ascension,  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  *'  I  am  persuaded  of  you,  my  brethren,  that  ye  also  are 
full  of  goodness,  filled  with  all  knowledge,  able  also  to  admonish 
one  another.  Your  obedience  is  come  abroad  unto  all  men." 
This  glorious  condition  did  not  pass  away  speedily.  There 
were  generations  following,  in  which  the  truth  was  kept  com- 


THE    ONLY   RULE.  15 

paratively  pure.  Papal  Rome  could  no  more  stand  Ijefore  the 
judgment  of  the  early  writers  in  the  Church  of  Rome  yet  un- 
defiled  than  she  could  before  the  Scriptures.  Hence,  the  con- 
fessors declared*  that,  in  their  doctrine,  there  not  only  was 
nothing  in  conflict  with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  with  the 
true  Church  Catholic,  or  Church  Universal,  but  nothing  in 
conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  true  Church  of  Rome,  as  her 
doctrines  were  set  forth  by  the  writers  of  the  earlier  ages. 
The  quotations  made  from  these  Fathers,  in  the  Confession, 
best  illustrate  the  meaning  of  this  declaration,  and  prove  its 
truth.  Thus,  for  example,  they  quote  the  ]N'icene  Fathers,  as 
witnesses  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  Ambrose  is  cited  to 
show,  "that  he  that  believeth  in  Christ,  is  saved,  without 
works,  by  faith  alone,  freely  receiving  remission."  In  the  ar- 
ticles on  Abuses,  the  testimony  of  the  purer  Fathers  and  Coun- 
cils is  used  with  great  eifect. 

But  not  because  of  the  testimony  of  the  Church  and  of  its 
writers  did  the  Reformers  hold  the  truth  they  confessed.  They 
knew  that  individual  churches  could  err,  and  had  erred  griev- 
ously, that  the  noblest  men  were  fallible.  I^othing  but  the 
firm  word  of  God  sufiiced  for  them. 

They  thanked  God,  indeed,  for  the  long  line  of  witnesses 
for  the  truth  of  His  Word.  Within  the  Church  of  Rome,  in 
the  darkest  ages,  there  had  been  men  faithful  to  the  truth. 
There  were  men,  in  the  midst  of  the  dominant  corruption, 
who  spake  and  labored  against  it.  There  were  Protestants, 
ages  before  our  princes  made  their  protest  at  Spires,  and 
Lutherans,  before  Luther  was  born.  But  not  on  these,  though 
they  sealed  the  truth  with  their  own  blood,  did  the  Reformers 
lean.  They  joyfully  used  them  as  testimony,  but  not  as 
authority.  They  placed  them  in  the  box  of  the  witness,  not 
on  the  bench  of  the  judge.  Their  utterances,  writings,  and 
acts  were  not  to  be  the  rule  of  faith,  but  were  themselves  to 
be  weighed  in  its  balance.  In  God  was  their  trust,  and  His 
Word  alone  was  their  stay. 

When  the  great  princes  and  free  cities  of  our  Church  at 
Augsburg,  in  1530,  laid  their  Confession  before  the  Emperor 

*  Augs.  Confess.  47  :  1. 


16  CONSEBYATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  potentates,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  of  the  realm,  they  said: 
"  We  offer  the  Confession  of  the  faith  held  hy  the  pastors  and 
preachers  in  our  several  estates,  and  the  Confession  of  our 
own  faith,  as  drawn  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.,  the  pure  Word  of 
God.^'^  That  Confession  repeatedly  expresses,  and  in  every 
Miie  implies  that  the  "Word  of  God  is  the  sole  rule  of  faith  and 
of  life.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Apology  or  Defence  of  the 
Confession  hy  Melanchthon,  which  appeared  in  the  follow^ing 
year,  and  which  was  adopted  by  the  larger  part  of  our  Church 
as  expressing  correctly  her  views,  f  Seven  years  later,  the 
articles  of  Smalcald  were  prepared  by  Luther,  for  presentation 
at  a  2;eneral  council,  as  an  expression  of  the  views  of  our 
Church.  In  this  he  says :  X  "  ^ot  from  the  works  or  words 
of  the  Fathers  are  articles  of  faith  to  be  made.  We  have 
another  rule,  to  wit :  that  God's  Word  shall  determine  arti- 
cles of  faith  —  and,  beside  it,  none  other  —  no,  not  an  angel 
even." 

Half  a  century  after  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  gone 
forth  on  its  sanctifying  mission,  our  Church  in  Germany,  in 
order  that  her  children  might  not  mistake  her  voice  amid  the 
bewildering  conflicts  of  theological  strife,  which  necessarily 
followed  such  a  breaking  up  of  the  old  modes  of  human 
thought  as  was  brought  about  by  the  Eeformation,  set  forth 
her  latest  and  amplest  Confession.  This  Confession,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  harmony  it  was  designed  to  subserve,  and  under 
God  did  largely  subserve,  was  called  the  Formula  of  Concord. 
That  document  opens  with  these  words  :  "  We  believe,  teach, 
and  confess  that  the  only  rule  and  law,  by  which  all  teachings 
and  all  teachers  are  to  be  estimated  and  judged,  is  none  other 
whatsoever  than  the  waitings  of  the  prophets  and  the  apostles, 
alike  of  the  Old  and  of  the  JSTew  Testament,  as  it  is  written  : 
'Thy  word  is  a  lamp  unto  my  feet,  and  a  light  unto  my  path  ; ' 
and  St.  Paul  saith  (Gal.  1:8):  '  Though  w^e,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you,  than  that  which 
we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.' " 

"  All  other  writings,"  it  continues,  "whether  of  the  Fathers, 
or  of  recent  authors,  be  their  name  what  they  may,  are  by  no 

*  A.  C.  Pnefat.  8.  f  Apol.  Con.  284  :  60.  J  303  :  15. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    WORD.  17 

means  whatsoever  to  be  likened  to  Holy  Scripture ;  but  are, 
in  such  sense,  to  be  subjected  to  it,  as  to  be  received  in  none 
other  way  than  as  witnesses,  which  show  how  and  where, 
after  the  apostles'  times,  tlie  doctrines  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets  were  preserved."  "  We  embrace,"  say  our  confessors, 
*'the  Augsburg  Confession,  not  because  it  was  written  by 
our  theologians,  but  because  it  was  taken  from  God's  Word, 
and  solidly  built  on  the  foundation  of  Holy  Scripture." 

With  equal  clearness  do  the  other  Churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion express  themselves  on  this  point. 

If,  then,  the  Reformers  knew  the  movements  of  their  own 
minds,  it  was  God's  Word,  and  it  alone,  which  made  them  con- 
fessors of  the  truth.  And  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Reformation,  that  God's  word  is  the  sole  and  absolute  author- 
ity, and  rule  of  faith,  and  of  life,  a  principle  without  accept- 
ing which,  no  man  can  be  truly  Evangelical,  Protestant,  or 
Lutheran. 

Fire  not  only  makes  bright  and  burning  the  thing  it  kin- 
dles, but  gives  to  it  the  power  of  impartation ;  i^,,^  providence 
whatever   is   kindled,    kindles   again.     From    the  ^^  o^'i  ^^^^  His 

-  ,  T    p  Word,     working 

Reformers,  the  fire  spread  to  the  people ;  and  irom  together  in  the 
cold  and  darkness  the  nations  seemed  to  struggle  ^'•'■^^'"'^-^i'''^- 
upward,  as  by  a  common  touch  from  heaven,  in  flames  of  holy 
sacrifice ;  and  here,  too,  the  AVord  showed  its  divine  power. 

We  acknowledge,  indeed,  with  joyous  hearts,  that  God  had 
prepared  all  things  wondrously,  for  the  spread  of  the  flame 
of  the  truth.  In  Germany,  the  fire  was  to  burst  forth,  which 
was  to  spread  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  "In  no  event  in  the 
history  of  mankind  does  the  movement  of  Divine  Providence 
present  itself  more  unmistakably,  than  in  the  Reformation  in 
Germany."  *  The  time,  the  place,  the  circumstances,  the  con- 
dition of  the  religious  and  of  the  political  world,  were  in  won- 
derful unison.  They  worked  with  each  other,  compensating 
each  other's  weaknesses,  and  helping  each  other's  power,  so  as 
to  give  a  sare  foundation,  a  firm  hold,  a  healthy  direction,  a 
high  purity,  a  mighty  protection,  a  wide-spread  recognition,  a 
swift  and  joyous  progress,  an  abiding  issue  to  the  glorious 

*Dr.  H.  Kurtz,  K.  G.   §211. 
2 


18  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

work.  The  soul  of  the  best  men  of  the  time  was  aiive  to  the 
wretched  condition  into  which  the  Church  had  fallen.  A  pro- 
found lonscinof  for  the  Reformation  filled  the  hearts  of  nations; 
science,  literature,  art,  discovery,  and  invention  were  elevating 
Europe,  and  preparing  the  way  for  the  triumphal  march  of 
pure  religion,  the  queen  of  all  knowledge.  In  the  Papal  chair 
sat  Leo  X.,  a  lover  of  art  and  literature,  careless  and  indolent 
in  all  things  else.  Over  the  beautiful  plains  of  Germany  wan- 
dered Tetzel,  senseless  and  impudent,  even  beyond  the  class  to 
which  he  belonged,  exciting  the  disgust  of  all  thinking  men, 
by  the  profligate  manner  in  which  he  sold  indulgences.  To 
protect  the  trembling  flame  of  the  truth  from  the  fierce  winds, 
which,  at  first,  would  have  extinguished  it ;  to  protect  it  till 
the  tornado  itself  should  only  make  it  blaze  more  vehemently, 
God  had  prepared  Frederick,  the  Wise,  a  man  of  immense 
influence,  universally  revered,  and  not  more  revered  than  his 
earnest  piety,  his  fidelity,  his  eminent  conscientiousness  de- 
served. The  Emperor  Charles  V.,  with  power  enough  to 
quench  tbe  flame  with  a  word,  with  a  hatred  to  it  which  seemed 
to  make  it  certain  that  he  would  speak  that  word,  was  yet  so 
fettered  by  the  plans  of  his  ambition,  that  he  left  it  unsaid,  and 
thus  was  made  the  involuntary  protector  of  that  which  he 
hated.  These  and  a  thousand  other  circumstances  were  pro- 
pitious. 

But  in  vain  is  the  wood  gathered,  and  in  vain  do  the: winds 
breathe,  unless  the  fire  is  applied.  In  vain  would  Luther, 
with  his  incomparable  gifts,  have  risen  —  in  vain  would  that 
genius,  to  which  a  Catholic  writer  declares  Luther's  own 
friends  have  not  done  full  justice  —  in  vain  would  that  high 
courage,  that  stern  resolve  have  presented  themselves  in  the 
matchless  combination  in  which  they  existed  in  him,  had  there 
not  been  first  a  power  beyond  that  of  man  to  purify  him,  and 
from  him  to  extend  itself  in  flame  around  him.  With  all 
of  Luther's  gifts,  he  might  have  been  a  monster  of  wickedness, 
or  a  slave  of  the  dominant  superstition,  helping  to  strengthen 
its  chains,  and  forge  new  ones,  had  not  the  truth  of  God  made 
him  free,  had  not  the  Spirit  of  God  in  His  Word  made  him  an 
humble  and  earnest  believer.     Luther  was  first  a  Christian, 


A    LESSON   FOR    OUR    TIME.  19 

and  then  a  Keformcr,  and  he  became  a  Kefornier  because  he 
was  a  Christian.  ''He  believed,  therefore  he  spoke."  But 
Christian  as  he  was,  he  could  not  have  been  a  successful  Re- 
former, had  he  not  possessed  the  power  of  spreading  the  iire  of 
Divine  truth.  The  fatal  defect  in  all  the  Reformatory  move- 
ments in  the  councils  and  universities  of  Paris  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  was  that  they  were  not  based  upon  the  true  founda- 
tion, and  did  not  propose  to  attain  the  great  end  by  the  right 
means.  The  cry  had  been  for  a  Reform  "  in  the  head  and 
members "  by  outward  improvement,  not  in  the  Spirit  and 
through  the  Word.  The  Reformation  was  kindled  by  the 
Word;  it  trusted  the  Word,  and  scattered  it  everywhere, 
directing  attention  to  it  in  every  writing,  and  grounding  every 
position  upon  it.  The  Word  soon  made  itself  felt  throughout 
all  Europe.  Even  in  the  lands  most  thoroughly  under  Papal 
power,  sparkles  of  the  truth  began  to  show  themselves,  as  in 
Austria,  Spain,  and  Italy.  But  from  Wittenberg  through 
Germany,  from  Zurich  through  Switzerland,  the  first  flame 
spread,  and  but  a  few  years  passed  ere  all  Europe,  which  is  at 
this  hour  Protestant,  had  received  the  pure  faith  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

The  fire  of  the  Divine  Word  destroyed  the  accumulated 
rubbish  of  tradition,  swept  away  the  hay,  wood,  and  stubble, 
which  the  hand  of  man  had  gathered  on  the  foundation  and 
heaped  over  the  temple,  and  the  gold,  silver,  and  precious 
stones  of  the  true  house  of  God  appeared.  The  Bible,  like 
sunshine  bursting  through  clouds,  poured  its  light  upon  the 
nations.  The  teaching  of  mere  men  ceased  to  be  regarded  as 
authority,  and  the  prophecy  was  again  fulfilled :  "  They  shall 
all  be  taught  of  God." 

Three  hundred  and  fifty-three  years  ago,  the  first  thrill  of 
the  earthquake  of  the  Reformation  was  felt  in  a  Lesson  for 
Europe.  Men  knew  so  little  of  its  nature,  that  they 
imagined  it  could  be  suppressed.  They  threw  their  weight 
upon  the  heaving  earth,  and  hoped  to  make  it  lie  still.  They 
knew  not  that  they  had  a  power  to  deal  with,  which  was 
made  more  terrible  in  its  outburst  by  the  attempt  to  confine 
it.     As    the   result   of    the   opposition    to   the    Reformation, 


20  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Europe  was  made  desolate.  After  the  final  struggle  of  the 
Thirty  Years'  "War,  Europe  seemed  ruined;  its  fields  had  been 
drenched  with  blood,  its  cities  laid  in  ashes,  hardly  a  family 
remained  undivided,  and  the  fiercest  passions  had  been  so 
aroused,  that  it  seemed  as  if  they  could  never  be  allayed. 

Yet  the  establishment  of  the  work  of  the  Reformation  has 
richly  repaid  Europe  for  all  it  endured.  The  earthquake 
has  gone,  the  streams  of  desolation  have  been  chilled,  and  the 
nations  make  a  jubilee  over  the  glorious  anniversary  of  that 
grand  movement  which,  by  the  depravity  of  men,  was  made 
the  occasion  of  so  much  disturbance  and  misery.  The  evils 
of  which  the  Reformation  was  the  occasion,  have  passed 
away.  We  must  go  to  the  page  of  history  to  know  what 
they  were.  The  blessings  of  which  the  Reformation  was  the 
cause,  abide ;  we  feel  them  in  our  homes,  in  the  Church,  in 
the  State  ;  they  are  inwoven  with  the  life  of  our  life.  Once 
feelino;  them,  we  know  that  this  would  be  no  world  to  live  in 
without  them. 

And  how  instructive  is  this  to  us  in  the  struggle  of  our  day 
for  the  perpetuation  of  the  truth  restored  by  the  Reformation. 
Not  alone  by  Rome,  but  also  by  heretical  or  fanatical  Pseudo- 
Protestants,  is  it  still  assailed  —  and  when  we  see  the  guilty 
passions,  the  violence  and  odious  spirit  of  misrepresentation 
excited,  and  feel  them  directed  upon  ourselves,  we  may  be 
tempted  to  give  up  the  struggle.  But  we  are  untrue  to  the 
lessons  of  the  Reformation,  if  we  thus  yield. 

Men  tremble  and  weep  as  the  molten  and  seething  elements 
make  the  earth  quake,  and  pour  themselves  out  in  red  and 
wasting  streams.  But  their  outbursting  is  essential  to  their 
consolidation,  and  to  their  bearing  part  in  the  work  of  the 
world.  What  was  once  lava,  marking  its  track  in  ruin,  shall 
one  day  lie  below  fair  fields,  whose  richness  it  has  made.  The 
olive  shall  stay  the  vine,  and  the  shadows  of  the  foliage  of 
vine  and  olive  shall  ripple  over  flowers  ;  and  women  and  chil- 
dren, lovelier  than  the  fruits  and  the  flowers,  shall  laugh  and 
Bing  amid  them.  The  blessings  from  the  upheaving  of  the 
heart  of  the  world  shall  gladden  the  chiklren  of  those  who 
gazed  on   it  with  wo-begone  eyes.     Had  a  war  of  three  hun- 


A    LESSON  FOR    OUR    TIME.  21 

dred  years  been  necessary  to  sustain  the  Reformation,  we  now 
know  the  Reformation  would  ultimately  have  repaid  all  the 
sacrifices  it  demanded.  Had  our  fathers  surrendered  the 
truth,  even  under  that  pressure  to  which  ours  is  but  a  feather, 
how  we  would  have  cursed  their  memory,  as  we  contrasted 
what  we  were  with  what  we  might  have  been. 

And  shall  we  despond,  draw  back,  and  give  our  names  to 
the  reproach  of  generations  to  come,  because  the  burden  of 
the  hour  seems  to  us  heavy  ?  God,  in  Ilis  mercy,  forbid  !  If 
all  others  are  ready  to  yield  to  despondency,  and  abandon  the 
struggle,  we,  children  of  the  Reformation,  dare  not.  That 
struggle  has  taught  two  lessons,  which  must  never  be  forgot- 
ten. One  is,  that  the  true  and  the  good  must  be  secured  at 
any  price.  They  are  beyond  all  price.  We  dare  not  compute 
their  cost.  They  are  the  soul  of  our  being,  and  the  whole 
world  is  as  dust  in  the  balance  against  them,  ^o  matter 
what  is  to  be  paid  for  them,  we  must  not  hesitate  to  lay  down 
their  redemption  price.  The  other  grand  lesson  is,  that  their 
price  is  never  paid  in  vain.  What  we  give  can  never  be  lost, 
unless  we  give  too  little.  If  we  give  all,  we  shall  have  all.  All 
shall  come  back.  Our  purses  shall  be  in  the  mouths  of  our 
sacks.  We  shall  have  both  the  corn  and  the  money.  But  if 
we  are  niggard,  we  lose  all  —  lose  what  we  meant  to  buy,  lose 
what  we  have  given.  If  we  maintain  the  pure  Word  inflexibly 
at  every  cost,  over  against  the  arrogance  of  Rome  and  of  the 
weak  pretentiousness  of  Rationalism,  we  shall  conquer  both 
through  the  Word ;  but  to  compromise  on  a  single  point,  is  to 
lose  all,  and  to  be  lost. 


II. 

LUTHER  PICTURED  BY  PENCIL  AND  PEN.* 


THE  pictured  life  of  Luther,  by  Konig  and  Gelzer,  which 
alone  we  propose  to  notice  at  any  length,  is  a  charming  book 
—  a  book  with  a  great  subject,  a  happy  mode  of  treatment, 
well  carried  out,  and  combining  the  fascination  of  good  pictures, 
good  descriptions,  and  elegant  typography.  It  is  an  oftering 
of  flowers  and  fruit  on  the  altar  of  the  greatest  memory  which 
the  heart  of  modern  Christianity  enshrines.  It  is  the  whole 
history  of  Luther  told  in  pictures,  and  descriptions  of  those 

*Dr.  Martin  Luthee  der  Deutsche  Reformator.  In  bildlichen  Darstellungen 
von  GusTAV  Konig.  In  geschichtlichen  Umrissen  von  Heinrich  Gelzer.  Ham- 
burg: Rudolf  Besser.  Gotha  :  Justus  Perthes.  1851.  [Dr.  Martin  Luther  the 
German  Reformer.  In  pictorial  representations,  and  historical  sketches.]  4to. 
(InEnglish,  Lond. :  1853.)  (With  Introduction  by  T.  Stork,  D.  D.  Philada. :  1854.) 

AuDiN :  Histoire  de  M.  Luther.  Nouv.  ed.  Louvain. :  1845.  2  vols.  8vo. 
(Transl.  into  English,  Phila. :  1841.     8vo.     London:   1854.     2  vols.  8vo.) 

Bower:  Life  of  Luther.  (1813.)     Philada.  :  1824.     8vo. 

CocHL^us:   Historia  M.  Lutheri.   (1559.)     Ingolst. :   1582.     4to. 

Engelhard:  Lucifer  Wittenberg.  Leb.  Lauf  Catherinae  v.  Bore.)  1747.     12mo. 

Fabricius  :  Centifolium  Lutheranum.     Hamb. :  1728. 

HuNNius,  N.  ;  OflF.  Bew.  d.  D.  M.  L.  zu  Ref.  beruffen.  n.  Apologia  Olearii. 
Leipz. :   16G6.     12mo. 

Juncker:  Guld.u.  Silb.Ehren.Ged.D.  Mart.  Luth.  Frankf.u.  Leipz.:  170G.  8vo. 

JiJRGENs:  Luther's  Leben.     Leipz.:   1846.     3  vols.  8vo. 

Kreussler:  D.  M.  L.'s  Andenk    in  Mlinzer.     Leipz.:   1818.     8yo. 

Labouchere:  Illustr.  of  the  Life  of  Martin  Luther.  (D'Aubigng.)  Philada. 
Luth.  Board:   1869.     4to.     (Photographs.— A  beautiful  book.) 

Ledderhose  :  M.  L.  n.  s.  'aussern  u.  innern  Leben.     Speyer, :  1836.     8vo. 

Luther:  Briefe.     De  Wette.     Berl. :  1826  seq.     6  vols.     8vo. 

*'  Concordanz  d.  Anaicht.  etc.     Darmst.  :   1827-31.     4  vols.     8vo. 

Opera.    Erlangen  :   1829  eeq.     Jena:   1556.     Wittenb.  :   1545-58. 

22 


LUTHER'S    CHILDHOOD.  23 

pic?tures,  followed  by  a  connected  sketch  of  the  Reformation 
as  it  centred  in  him. 

The  work  contains  forty-eight  engravings,  divided,  w^ith  ref- 
erence to  the  leading  events  of  his  life,  or  the  Lu,h.,.rschii.j- 
great  features  of  his  character,  into  seven  parts.  '"^""'• 
The  FIRST  division  embraces  the  years  of  his  childhood  —  and,  not 
uncharacteristically  of  the  German  origin  of  the  book,  pre- 
sents us  as  a  first  picture  Martin  Luther  (such  we  must  here 
call  him  by  anticipation)  on  the  night  of  "  his  birth,  11  o'clock, 
ITovember  10th,  1483."  Speaking  of  Luther's  birth,  Carlyle 
says:  "In  the  whole  world,  that  day,  there  was  not  a  more 
entirely  unimportant-looking  pair  of  people,  than  this  miner 
and  his  wife.  And  yet  what  were  all  Emperors,  Popes,  and 
Potentates,  in  comparison  ?  There  was  born  here,  once  more, 
a  Mighty  Man  ;  whose  light  was  to  flame  as  the  beacon  over 
long  centuries  and  epochs  of  the  world ;  the  whole  world  and 
its  history  was  waiting  for  this  man.  It  is  strange,  it  is  great. 
It  leads  us  back  to  another  Birth-hour,  in  a  still  meaner  en- 
vironment, eighteen  hundred  years  ago  —  of  which  it  is  fit 

Luther:  Werke.  Altenburg:  1661.  Erlangen :  1826  seq.  (2d  ed.  Frankf. 
a.  M.  :  1869  seq.)  Halle  (Walch.) :  1740-52.  Leipzig  :  1729-34.  Wittenberg: 
1539-59. 

Luther  :   Table  Talk.     Hazlitt.     Luth.  Board  Public,  Philada. :   1868. 

Mathesius:  Dr.  M.  L.  Leben.     In  XVIL  Predigt.     (1565.)     Berlin:   1862. 

Melanchthon  :  Vita  et  Act.  Lutheri.  (1546.)  Ed.  Forstemann.  Nordhau- 
sen  :  1846.     8vo. 

Melanchthon:    Aus  d.  Lateinischen.     (Mayer.)     Wittenb. :   1847. 

Meurer  :  Lathers  Leben  a.  d.  Quellen.     2d  edit.     Dresden  :   1852.     Svo. 

Morris,  J.  6.:  Quaint  Sayings  and  Doings  concerning  Luther.  Philada.* 
1859. 

Muller  :  Lutherus  Defensus.      Hamb.  :  1658.     12mo. 

Niemeyer,  C.  H.  :  M.  L.  n.  s.  Leben  u.  Wirken.     Halle:  1817.     8vo. 

Scott  :   Luther  and  the  L.  Reformation.     New  York  :   1838.     2  vols.     12mo. 

Sears  :  Life  of  Luther.     Am.  S.  S.  Un. 

Stang  :  M.  L.  s.  Leben  u.  Wirken.     Stuttg.  1835.     4to. 

Ukert:   L.'s  Leben,  mit  d.  Literat.     Gotha:  1817.    8yo. 

Ulenberg  :  Gesch.  d.  Lutherischer  Reformatoren.  Dr.  M.  Luther,  &c.  Mainz: 
1836.     2  vols.  Svo. 

Weiser:  Life  of  Luther.     Balto. :   1853. 

Wieland:  Charakteristik.  D.  M.  L.     Chemnitz:    1801.     12mo. 

Zimmermann,  K.  :  Luther's  Leben.  in  Reformat.  Schriften  D.  M.  L.  Darm- 
stadt:  1846-1849.    4  vols,  8vo. 


24  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

that  we  say  nothing,  that  we  think  only  in  silence ;  for  what 
vvords  are  there  I  The  Age  of  Miracles  past  ?  The  Age  of 
Miracles  is  forever  here  1 "  *  In  the  second  picture,  Master 
Martin  is  hroiight  to  school,  to  a  terrible-looking  school- 
master, with  a  bundle  of  rods  in  his  hand,  and  with  a  boy 
whom  you  can  almost  hear  sobbing,  crouching  at  the  back 
of  his  chair.  In  the  third,  wandering  with  his  little  com- 
rades, he  comes,  singing,  to  the  door  of  Madame  Cotta  in 
Eisenach,  (1498.)  In  a  little  niche  below,  his  gentle  protect- 
ress brings  him  his  lute,  to  win  him  for  a  while  from  his  books. 
The  SECOND  division  leads  us  over  his  youth,  in  seven  illus- 
trations. In  the  first,  Luther  is  seen  in  the  Li- 
Luther-.  Youth.    ^^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  Uuiversity  of  Erfurt,  gazing  eagerly, 

for  the  first  time,  on  the  whole  Bible  —  his  hand  unconsciously 
relaxing  on  a  folio  Aristotle,  as  he  reads,  (1501.)  ]S"ext,  the 
Providence  is  smiting,  together  with  the  Word.  Ilis  friend 
Alexis,  as  they  journey, falls  dead  at  his  side, by  a  thunderstroke. 
Then  follows  the  step  of  a  fearful  heart.  With  sad  face,  and 
with  the  moon,  in  her  first  quarter,  beaming  on  him  like  that 
faith  which  was  yet  so  far  from  the  full ;  with  his  heathen 
poets  beneath  his  arm,  he  takes  the  hand  of  the  monk  w^ho 
welcomes  him  to  the  cloister  of  the  Augustinian  Eremites, 
(1505.)  l^ext  the  monk  receives  the  solemn  consecration  to 
the  priesthood,  and  now  with  the  tonsure,  the  cowl  and  the 
rosary,  barefooted,  with  the  scourge  by  his  side,  he  agonizes, 
with  macerated  body  and  bleeding  heart,  at  the  foot  of  the 
crucifix.  We  turn  a  leaf — he  lies  in  his  cell,  like  one  dead  — 
he  has  swooned  over  the  Bible,  which  he  now  never  permits 
to  leave  his  hand.  The  door  has  been  burst  open,  and  his 
friends  bring  lutes,  that  they  may  revive  him  by  the  influence 
of  the  only  power  which  yet  binds  him  to  the  world  of  sense. 
IS'ow  a  ray  of  light  shoots  in :  the  Spirit  chafing  in  the  body 
has  brought  him  hard  by  the  valley  of  death  ;  but  an  old 
brother  in  the  Cloister,  by  one  word  of  faith  gives  him  power 
to  rise  from  his  bed  of  sickness,  and  clasp  his  comforter  around 
the  neck.     With  this  touching  scene,  ends  this  part. 

*  On  Heroes  and  Hero-Worship  — or  Six  Lectures  by  Thomas  Carlyle— New 
York,  1849,  p.  114. 


LUTHER    AT    THE    UNIVERSITY.  25 

In  the  THIRD  period,  we  have  illustrations  of  Luther's  career 
at  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  As  a  Bachelor  u^u.-r  at  the 
of  Arts  he  is  holding  philosophical  and  theo-  ''"'''"' ^•^■ 
logical  prelections,  (1508.)  Then  we  have  him  preaching  in 
the  Cloister  before  Staupitz,  and  the  other  brethren  of  his  order, 
as  a  preliminary  to  appearing  in  the  Castle  and  City  church. 
Luther's  journey  to  Rome  (1510)  is  shown  in  four  pictures 
grouped  on  one  page.  In  the  first  he  is  starting  eagerly  on  his 
journey  to  the  "  holy  city" — in  the  second,  at  first  view  of  that 
home  of  martyrs  hallowed  by  their  blood,  and  not  less  by  the 
presence  of  the  vicar  of  Christ  and  vicegerent  of  God,  he  falls 
upon  his  knees,  in  solemn  awe  and  exultation  ;  in  the  centre,  he 
is  gazing  on  the  proud  and  godless  Pope  Julius,  riding  with  pam- 
pered cardinals  in  his  train  —  and  in  the  last,  he  looks  back,  and 
waves  over  that  city  the  hand  whose  bolts  in  after  time  seemed 
mighty  enough  to  sink  it  to  that  realm  —  over  which,  its  own 
inhabitants  told  him,  if  there  was  a  hell,  Rome  was  certainly 
built.*  ^'  To  conceive  of  Luther's  emotions  on  entering  Rome, 
we  must  remember  that  he  was  a  child  of  the  north,  who  loved 
privation  and  fasting — who  was  of  a  meditative  nature,  and 
had  vowed  to  the  cross  of  Christ  an  austere  worship.  His 
Christianity  was  of  a  severe  and  rigid  character.  When  he 
prayed  it  was  on  the  stone ;  the  altar  before  which  he  knelt 
was  almost  invariably  of  wood  ;  his  church  was  time-worn, 
and  the  chasuble  of  its  ministers  of  coarse  wool.  Imagine, 
then,  this  monk  —  this  poor  Martin,  who  walked  twelve  hun- 
dred miles,  with  nothing  to  support  him  but  coarse  bread  ; 
think  of  him  suddenly  transported  to  the  midst  of  a  city  of 
wonders,  of  pleasure,  of  music,  and  of  pagan  antiquity.  What 
must  have  been  his  feelings :  he  who  had  never  heard  any 
greater  sound  than  was  made  by  the  falling  water  of  the  con- 
vent fountain  —  who  knew  no  recreation  beyond  that  of  his 
lute,  w^hen  prayers  were  over,  and  who  knew  no  ceremony 
more  imposing  than  the  induction  of  an  Augustinian  monk  — 
how  must  he  have  been  astonished,  even  scandalized  !  He  had 
fancied  to  himself  an  austere  religion  —  its  brow  encircled  with 

*  '"So  hab  ich  selbs   zu  Rom   geliort  sagen :   ist  eine  Holle,  so  ist  Rom  tlurauf 
gebaut." 


26  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK 

care,  its  ministers  lying  on  the  hard  ground,  sating  their  thirst 
at  heavenly  founts,  dressed  as  were  the  Apostles,  and  treading 
on  stony  paths  with  the  Everlasting  Gospel  in  their  hands. 
In  place  of  this  he  saw  cardinals  borne  in  litters,  or  on  horse- 
back, or  in  carriages,  their  attire  blazing  with  jewels,  their 
faces  shaded  by  canopies,  or  the  plumes  of  the  peacock,  and 
marking  their  route  by  clouds  of  dust  so  dense  as  completely 
to  veil  and  hide  their  attendants.  His  dreams  reverted  to 
those  days,  when  the  chief  of  the  Apostles,  a  pilgrim  like 
himself,  had  only  a  staff  to  support  his  weakness.  The  poor 
scholar,  who,  in  his  childhood,  had  endured  so  much,  and  who 
often  pillowed  his  head  on  the  cold  ground,  now  passes  before 
palaces  of  marble,  alabaster  columns,  gigantic  granite  obelisks, 
sparkling  fountains,  villas  adorned  with  gardens,  cascades  and 
grottos!  Does  he  wish  to  pray ?  He  enters  a  church,  which 
appears  to  him  a  little  world  ;  where  diamonds  glitter  on  the 
altar,  gold  upon  the  ceiling,  marble  in  the  columns,  and  mo- 
saic in  the  chapels.  In  his  own  country,  the  rustic  temples 
are  ornamented  by  votive  flowers  laid  by  some  pious  hand 
upon  the  altar.  Is  he  thirsty?  Instead  of  one  of  those  springs 
that  flow  through  the  wooden  pipes  of  Wittenberg,  he  sees 
fountains  of  white  marble,  as  large  as  German  houses.  Is  he 
fatio-ued  with  walkins*?  He  finds  on  his  road,  instead  of  a 
modest  wooden  seat,  some  antique,  just  dug  up,  on  which  he 
may  rest.  Does  he  look  for  a  holy  image  ?  He  sees  nothing 
but  the  fantasies  of  paganism,  old  deities  —  still  giving  em- 
ployment to  thousands  of  sculptors.  They  are  the  gods  of 
Demosthenes,  and  of  Praxiteles ;  the  festivals  and  processions 
of  Delos;  the  excitement  of  the  forum;  in  a  word,  pagan  folly: 
but  of  the  foolishness  of  the  Cross,  which  St.  Paul  extols,  he 
appears  nowhere  to  see  either  memorial  or  representation."* 
These  are  the  concessions,  and  this  the  apology  of  a  Roman 
Catholic  historian,  and  we  permit  them  to  pass  together. 
After  his  return  we  see  Luther  with  his-h  solemnities  created 
Doctor  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Carlstadt  as  Dean  of  the  Theo- 
logical Faculty,  ofliciating  at  his  promotion,  (1512.)  The  close 
of  this  era  leaves  Luther  busy  in  dictating  letters,  and  per- 

*  AuJin's  Life  of  Luther. 


THE   REFORMATION  IN  ITS   RISE.  27 

forming  the  functions  of  "  a  Vicar-General  of  the  Augustinian 
Order,"  with  which  he  had  been  intrusted  by  Staupitz,  (1516.) 
By  this  ojSice  he  was  fitted  for  that  part  which  he  took  in 
giving  form  to  the  Church  when  it  ere  long  began  to  renew 
its  youth  like  the  eagle's. 

We  come  now  to  the  Reformation  itself,  (1517,)  the  warning 
flash,  the   storm,   and   the   purified   heaven   that     ,^,^^  Keforma- 
followed  it.     This  period  is  embraced  in  sixteen  ^lon  in  its  rise. 
principal   pictures,  with   seven   subsidiary  ones  on  a  smaller 
scale. 

The  first  of  these  grouped  pictures  presents  four  scenes.  Be- 
low, Luther  is  refusing,  as  the  Confessor  of  his  people,  to  give 
them  absolution,  while  they  exultingly  display  their  indul- 
gences ;  in  the  centre,  Luther  nails  to  the  door  of  the  church- 
tower  the  immortal  theses  —  on  the  left,  Tetzel  sells  indulgences, 
and  commits  Luther's  writing  to  the  flames,  and  on  the  right, 
the  Wittenberg  students  are  handling  his  own  anti-theses  in  the 
same  unceremonious  way.  The  smoke  from  both  fires  rises  to 
a  centre  above  the  whole,  and,  like  the  w^an  image  in  a  dream, 
the  swan  whose  white  wings  were  waving  before  Huss'  dying 
eyes,  is  lifting  herself  unscathed  from  the  flames.  Isow  Lu- 
ther bends  before  Cajetan,  and  then  at  night,  "without  shoe  or 
stocking,  spur  or  sword,"  flies  on  horseback  through  a  portal 
of  Augsburg.  The  picture  that  follows  is  one  of  great  beauty, 
rich  in  portraits.  It  represents  the  dispute  at  Leipsic  between 
Luther  and  Eck,  (1519.)  In  the  Hall  of  the  Pleissenburg  the 
two  great  chieftains  face  each  other  —  the  one  bold,  cogent, 
overwhelming — the  other  sly,  full  of  lubricity,  sophistical 
and  watchful ;  the  one  Hercules,  the  other  the  Hydra.  By  Lu- 
ther's side  sits  Melanchthon,  with  the  deep  lines  of  thought 
upon  his  youthful  face ;  at  their  feet,  Carlstadt,  with  a  book 
in  each  hand,  with  knit  brows  searches,  for  something  which 
his  treacherous  memory  has  not  been  able  to  retain.  In  the 
centre  of  the  court,  Duke  George  of  Saxony  listens  earnestly  to 
the  dispute,  till  at  Luther's  words,  that  "  some  Articles  even 
of  Huss  and  the  Bohemians  accorded  with  the  Gospel,"  he  in- 
voluntarily exclaimed,  "  The  man  is  mad  !  "  At  his  feet  sits 
the  court-fool,  gazing  with  a  puzzled  and  earnest  air  at  Dr   Eck, 


28  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

as  thoiigli  he  dreaded  remotely  that  he  had  in  him  a  danger- 
ous competitor  for  his  own  office.  Kext  we  have  Luther  burn- 
ing the  Papal  bull,  (1520,)  then  his  reception  at  Worms,  (1521.) 
These  are  followed  by  a  double  picture :  above,  Luther  is  pre- 
paring by  prayer  to  appear  before  the  Emperor  and  the  Diet ; 
his  lattice  opens  out  upon  the  towers  of  the  city,  and  the  calm 
stars  are  shining  upon  him.  It  reminds  us  of  the  garden  at 
Wittenberg,  w^here,  one  evening  at  sunset,  a  little  bird  has 
perched  for  the  night:  ''That  little  bird,"  says  Luther  — 
"above  it  are  the  stars  and  deep  heaven  of  w^orlds ;  yet  it  has 
folded  its  little  wings;  gone  trustfully  to  rest  there  as  in 
its  home.'"  His  lute  rests  by  his  side,  his  brow  is  turned  to 
heaven  and  his  hands  clasped  fervently  ;  below,  he  approaches 
the  entrance  to  the  Diet;  the  knight  Frundsberg  lays  a  friendly 
hand  upon  his  shoulder,  and  speaks  a  cheering  word.  In  the 
angles  of  the  ornamental  border  appear  statues  of  those  two 
heroes  who  declared  themselves  ready  with  word  and  sword, 
if  need  were,  to  defend  at  Worms  their  "holy  friend,  the  un- 
conquerable Theologian  and  Evangelist ; "  Ilutten  rests  upon 
the  harp  and  lifts  the  sword  in  his  right  hand  ;  his  brow  is 
crowned  with  the  poet's  laurel ;  the  brave  Sickingen  lifts  the 
shield  upon  his  arm,  and  holds  in  his  right  hand  the  marshal's 
staff.  Luther  has  entered  the  hall  —  stands  before  the  mighty  — 
and  is  represented  at  the  moment  when  he  throws  his  whole 
soul  into  that  "  good  confession,"  surpassed  in  moral  grandeur 
but  by  one,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  race.  "  The  Diet  of 
Worms,  Luther's  appearance  there  on  the  17th  of  April,  1521, 
may  be  considered  as  the  greatest  scene  in  modern  European 
History ;  the  point,  indeed, from  which  the  whole  subsequent  his- 
tory of  civilization  takes  its  rise.  The  world's  pomp  and  power 
sits  there,  on  this  hand :  on  that,  stands  up  for  God's  truth, 
one  man,  the  poor  miner  Hans  Luther's  son.  Our  petition  — 
the  petition  of  the  whole  world  to  him  was:  'Free  us;  it  rests 
with  thee;  desert  us  not.'  Luther  did  not  desert  us.  It  is,  as 
we  say,  the  greatest  moment  in  the  Modern  History  of  Men  — 
English  Puritanism,  England  and  its  Parliaments,  America's 
vast  work  these  two  centuries  ;  French  Revolution,  Europe 
and  its  work  everywhere  at  present :  the  germ  of  it  all  lay 


FANATICISM.  29 

there:  had  Luther  in  that  moment  done  other,  it  had  all  been 
otlierwise."*  ISText  follows  his  arrest  on  the  way,  (1521.) 
Next,  sitting  in  the  dress  of  a  knight,  his  cap  hanging  on  the 
head  of  the  chair,  his  sword  resting  at  its  side,  in  a  quiet 
chamber  of  the  Thuringian  castle,  we  see  him  at  work  on  his 
translation  of  the  Bible.  But  his  active  spirit  prompts  him  to 
return  to  his  former  duties  at  any  risk ;  now,  with  his  book 
resting  on  the  pommel  of  his  saddle,  he  rides  away  from  the 
Wartbarg ;  meets  the  Swiss  students  at  the  hostelry  of  the  Black 
Bear  in  Jena,  who  can  talk  about  nothing  but  Luther,  who 
sits  unknown,  and  is  recognized  by  them  with  astonishment 
wheu  at  Wittenberg  they  meet  him  in  the  circle  of  his  friends. 
A  new  stadium  is  now  reached  in  this  era.  The  danger 
greater  than  all  outward  dangers,  that  which  arises  within 
great  moral  movements,  now  begins  to  display  itself.  From 
applying  the  internal  remedies  well  calculated  to  eradicate  the 
cause  of  disease,  men  besrin  to    operate  upon  the 

'  '='  ^  ^  Fiiniiticisni. 

surface;  instead  of  curing  the  leprosy,  they  com- 
mence scraping  off  its  scales.  The  war  against  images  in  the 
churches  commenced;  'Cut,  burn,  break,  annihilate,'  was  the 
cr}^  and  the  contest  was  rapidly  changing,  from  a  conflict  with 
errors  in  the  human  heart,  to  an  easy  and  useless  attack  on  paint 
and  stone.  A  harder  struggle,  than  any  to  which  he  had  yet 
been  called,  demands  Luther's  energy.  He  must  defend  the  living 
truth  from  the  false  issues  into  which  its  friends  may  carry  it. 
Luther  arrests  the  storm  against  images.  The  artist  places  him 
in  the  centre  of  a  band  of  iconoclasts  in  the  temple.  His  hand 
and  voice  arrest  a  man  who  is  about  climbing  a  ladder  to  de- 
stroy the  ornaments  of  the  church.  IN'ear  him  a  youth  hold- 
ing a  chasuble  is  pausing  to  hear ;  on  the  floor,  a  peasant  sus- 
pends the  tearing  of  a  missal  in  the  middle  of  a  page;  an  older 
man,  with  a  heap  of  sacred  vestments  beneath  him  and  a 
broken  crosier  under  his  foot,  half  relaxes  his  hold  on  the 
Monstrance,  and  looks  scowlingly  around.  On  the  extreme  right 
of  the  picture,  there  is  a  fine  contrast  between  the  fanatical 
countenance  of  a  man  who  has  just  lifted  a  heavy  hammer 
against  the  statue  of  a  saint,  and  the  placid  face  which  he  is 

^  Ca.lylo,  Heroes  and  Hero-Worship,  p.  121. 


30  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

about  to  destroy.  Carlstadt,  with  his  foot  propped  upon  the 
shoulder  of  a  devout  old  bishop  in  stone,  looks  on  Luther  with 
an  expression  of  impotent  wrath. 

The  next  picture  leads  us  to  a  calmer  scene.     Luther  is  in  his 
Lutiiei  a.i.i    quiet  room.     His  translation  of  the  Bible  is  grow- 

Meiiinchth  .n.  -^^^  bcueath  his  hand.  By  his  side,  rendering  invalu- 
able aid,  is  Melanchthon  :  "  Still,"  said  Luther,  "  in  age,  form, 
and  mien,  a  youth  :  but  in  mind  a  man."  This  Avas  the  time 
of  their  first  love,  when  they  were  perfectly  of  one  spirit,  and 
full  of  admiration,  each  of  the  other's  wondrous  gifts ;  when 
Melanchthon  knew  no  glory  on  e:;rth  beyond  that  of  looking 
upon  Luther  as  his  father,  and  Luther's  chief  joy  was  to  see 
and  extol  Melanchthon,  (1523-24.) 

Xext,  as   if  the   artist    would  lead   us   through    alternate 

Lnti.eis.iiai-  sccues  of  suushiue  and  tempest,  we  have  Luther 
" '^■"  preaching   in   Seeburg   against    the   peasant   war, 

(1525 ;)  a  noble  picture  crowded  with  varied  life.  Then  from 
revelry,  arson,  and  rapine,  we  are  led  into  a  private  chapel  in 
the  house  of  the  Registrar  of  Wittenberg.  The  jurist,  Apel, 
and  the  great  painter,  Cranach,  stand  on  either  side ;  Bugen- 
hagen  blesses  the  plighted  troth  of  Luther  and  Catherine, 
who  kneel  before  him,  she  with  her  long  hair  flowing  over 
her  shoulders,  and  the  marriage  wreath  on  her  brow,  her  face 
meekly  and  thoughtfully  bent  downward ;  he  holding  her 
right  hand  in  his,  his  left  pressing  on  his  heart,  and  his  eyes 
turned  to  heaven,  (June  loth,  1525.) 

From  sunshine  to  storm  —  Luther's  conference  with  Zwingle 
on  the  question  of  the  Sacrament,  (October  1-1,  1529.)    Luther 

LutiK-r  .ii.d  had  redeemed  the  Gospel  doctrine  of  the  Supper  from 
Zwingle.  ^YiQ  gross  materialism  and  scholastic  reiinings  of 

Rome:  it  was  now  his  work  to  maintain  it  against  the  error 
which  violent  reaction  had  produced,  a  hyperspiritualizing, 
which  was  driven  to  so  violent  a  resort  as  confounding  the 
benefits  of  our  Redeemer's  flesh  with  the  feebleness  of  our  own. 
It  was  to  save  the  living  body  of  Christ  himself  from  dissever- 
ance, to  rescue  the  Reformation  from  a  tendency  toward  Sect, 
which  an  easy  perversion  of  some  of  its  principles  might  cause, 
that  Luther  struggled.     As  the  Protestant  world  has  receded 


THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  31 

from  the  great  sacriirnentiil  princi[)les  which  Luther  main- 
tained at  Marburg,  just  in  tliat  proportion  has  it  been  torn 
with  internal  dissension  —  and  just  in  proportion  to  its  return 
to  them,  has  there  risen  a  more  earnest  striving  toward  a 
consummation  of  the  Saviour's  prayer:  that  all  his  people 
might  be  one.  No  man  in  Luther's  time,  no  man  since,  so 
harmoniously  blended,  so  kept  in  their  due  proportion  all  the 
elements  of  a  real  Reformation.  ''Luther's  character,"  says 
Bengel,  "was  truly  great.  All  his  brother  Reformers  to- 
gether will  not  make  a  Luther.  His  death  was  an  important 
epocha ;  for  nothing,  since  it  took  place,  has  ever  been  realbj 
added  to  the  Reformation  itself." 

The  artist  closes  this  period  fitly,  with  the  delivery  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  (1530,)  that  great  providen-     Ti.e  AuRsburg 
tial  act  by  which  God,  having  brought  to  mature  ^<^"^''''^'""- 
consciousness  the  leading   doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  gave  them 
currency  in  the  wdiole  world.     Thirteen  years  had  passed  since 
the  truth,  like  a  whisper  in  a  secret  place,  had  been  uttered  at 
Wittenberg;  now  it  was  to  ring  like  a   trumpet  before  the 
Emperor  and  his  whole  realm.    "  In  sighs  and  prayers,''  writes 
Luther  from  Coburg,  *'  I  am  by  your  side.     If  we  fall,  Christ 
falls  with  us — if  He  fall,  rather  will  I  fall  with  him  than 
stand  with  the  Emperor ;    but  we  need  not  fear,  for  Christ 
overcometh  the  world."     In  the  picture,  the  artist  has  ranged 
the  Evangelical  party  to  the  right,  the  Romish  to  the  left  of 
the  spectator:  contrary  to  the  historical  fact,  he  has  introduced 
Melanchthon,  who  stands  most  prominently,  with  folded  arms 
and  careworn  face.     Below  him,  the  Elector,  John  the  Con- 
stant,  clasps  his  hands  in  silent   invocation ;    behind  whom 
stands  George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  and  by  his  side  sits 
Philip,  Landgrave   of  Hesse,  bracing  himself  on  his  sword. 
In  the  centre  sits  Charles,  his  Spanish  origin  showing  itself 
in  his  features.     Back  of  his  seat  is  embroidered  the  double- 
headed  crownied  eagle  of  the  Empire.     A  crown  with  triple 
divisions,   the    central   one   of    which   is    surmounted   by   a 
small  cross,  rests  on  his  head  —  the  sceptre  is  in  his  hand. 
The  ermine,  crosiers,  mitres,  cowl,  and  cardinal's  hat  mark 
the  party  to  his  right.    Before  him  the  Chancellor  Baier  reads 


32  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  Confession.  Around  the  picture  are  thrown  connected 
Gothic  ornaments  ;  in  the  upper  arch  of  which  Luther  is  pros- 
trate in  prayer.  At  its  base  an  angel  holds  in  either  hand  the 
coat  of  arras  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  with  an  intertwining 
band,  on  which  are  traced  the  words  from  Luther's  favorite 
Psalm :  "  I  shall  not  die,  but  live,  and  declare  the  works  of 
the  Lord/'  From  the  highest  point,  not  without  significance, 
rises  the  cross,  and  here  this  part  appropriately  ends. 

The  Church  thus  fairly  brought  to  a  full  self-consciousness, 

The  Koformi-  tlic  FIFTH  part,  prcscuts  us,  in  four  characteristic 
ti.mi..itsreMiit..  pi^turcs,  thc  vesidts.  In  the  first,  Luther,  with 
all  his  co-laborers,  Christian  and  Jewish,  around  him,  labors  on 
that  translation  of  which  even  a  Jesuit  historian  speaks  thus : 
''  Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible  is  a  noble  monument  of  litera- 

Tnvnsiation  of  turc,  a  vast  cutcrprise  which  seemed  to  require 
th- Bible.  ^^^^   ^^^^^   ^l-^g   life  of  nian;   but  which  Luther 

accomplished  in  a  few  years.  The  poetic  soul  finds  in  this 
translation  evidences  of  genius,  and  expressions  as  natural, 
beautiful  and  melodious  as  in  the  original  languages.  Luther's 
translation  sometimes  renders  the  primitive  phrase  with  touch- 
ing simplicity,  invests  itself  with  sublimity  and  magnificence, 
and  receives  all  the  modifications  which  he  wishes  to  impart  to 
it.  It  is  simple  in  the  recital  of  the  patriarch,  glowing  in  the 
predictions  of  the  prophets,  familiar  in  the  Gospels,  and  collo- 
quial in  the  Epistles.  The  imagery  of  the  original  is  rendered 
with  undeviating  fidelity;  the  translation  occasionally  ap- 
proaches the  text.  We  must  not  then  be  astonished  at  the 
enthusiasm  which  Saxony  felt  at  the  appearance  of  Luther's 
version.  Both  Catholics  and  Protestants  regarded  it  an  honor 
done  to  their  ancient  .idiom."*  In  the  picture,  Luther  stands  be- 
tween Bugenhagen  and  Melanchthon ;  Jonas,  Forstensius,  Creu- 
ziger,  and  the  Kabbins  are  engaged  in  the  eff'ort  to  solve  some 
difiiculty  that  has  risen. 

The    second   result   is   shown  in  a  scene  in  a  school-room, 

in  which  the  Catechism  has  just  been  introduced. 

The  Catechism,   j^^^^^^^,  g'^g  ^^  thc  midst  of  thc  childreu  tcachiug 

them  the  first  Article  of  the  Creed.     Jonas  is  distributing  the 

*  Audin's  Luther,  chap.  xxiv. 


LUTHER    IN  PRIVATE    LIFE.  33 

book  among  them,  and  in  the  background  a  number  of  teachers 
listen  that  they  may  learn  to  carry  out  this  new  feature  in 
their  calling. 

The  third  result  is  shown  in  the  'pulfiL  Luther  had  given 
the  Bible  for  all  ages,  and  all  places ;  he  had  laid  ,^,,,^  ^,^^^^.^ 
primal  principles  at  the  foundation  of  human  cimrch  .service. 
thought,  by  introducing  the  Catechism  into  the  schools  ;  now 
he  re-creates  the  service  of  the  church.  In  the  engraving  the 
artist  has  grouped  happily,  all  that  is  associated  with  the 
Evangelical  service.  Luther,  in  the  pulpit,  is  preaching  to 
nobles  and  subjects,  with  all  the  fervor  of  his  soul.  The  font 
and  altar,  illumined  by  a  flood  of  sunbeams,  recall  the  Sacra- 
ments ;  the  organ  reminds  us  of  the  place  which  the  Reforma- 
tion gave  to  sacred  music,  and  the  alms-box,  of  its  appeals  to 
sacred  pity.  The  fourth  picture  represents  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  both  kinds ;  Luther  extends  the 
cup  to  the  Elector  John  Frederick,  whilst  Bugenhagen  distrib- 
utes the  bread. 

The  SIXTH  general  division  shows  us  Luther  in  j^nvate  life. 
First  we  have  two  pictures  illustrating  his  relations  ^^^^^^^^  .^  ^^..^ 
to  his  princes.  Li  one  he  is  represented  reading  vateme.  Prmce.. 
from  the  Bible  to  his  devoted  friend,  the  Elector  *'^^^"'^-  ^^"''^• 
John  the  Constant ;  in  the  other,  on  his  sick-bed,  he  is  visited 
and  comforted  by  the  Elector  John  Frederick,  (1537.)  Secondly, 
we  have  him  in  his  relations  to  his  personal  friends.  In  the  first 
picture,  Luther  is  sitting  for  his  likeness,  to  Lucas  Cranach ;  in 
the  next  he  is  rousing  Melanchthon  almost  from  the  torpor  of 
death,  by  the  prayer  of  faith  ;  the  third,  illustrating  the  intro- 
duction of  the  German  church  music,  conducts  us  into  Luther's 
"  Chantry  in  the  House."  With  his  children  and  friends  around 
him,  he  is  giving  voice  to  the  first  Evangelical  hymns.  The 
little  choir  is  led  by  Walter,  Master  of  the  Electoral  Chapel ;  on 
the  left  stands  the  Chanter,  on  the  right,  Mathesius.  Thirdly, 
we  see  him  in  his  family.  The  first  picture  shows  him  in  the 
enjoyment  of  all  that  imparts  delight  to  summer  —  with  his 
household  and  his  most  familiar  friends  about  him.  It  is 
a  charming  scene  of  innocent  festivity  which  the  artist  here 
brings  before  the  eye.     Under  a  trellis  mantled  with  vines 


34  COXSEnrATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

loaded  with  ricli  clusters  of  grapes,  the  party  is  assembled,  at 
sunset.  Luther  holds  out  his  hands  to  his  youngest  child, 
who,  by  the  aid  of  his  mother,  is  tottering  towards  his  father 
with  a  bunch  of  grapes  weighing  down  his  little  hands.  The 
oldest  boy,  mounted  on  a  light  ladder,  hands  down  the  grapes, 
which  Madeleine  receives  in  her  apron.  The  third  boy  is  bring- 
ing to  his  father  a  cluster  remarkable  for  its  size ;  the  second 
son  is  playing  with  the  dog,  perhaps  that  very  dog  which, 
Luther  said,  had  "looked  at  many  books."  The  ground  is 
covered  w^ith  melons.  One  of  Luther's  friends  plays  upon  the 
flute,  another  sketches  a  basket  of  beautiful  fruit ;  two  of  them 
sit  beneath  the  arbor,  and  two  others  wander  in  the  garden  in 
friendly  converse.  Through  an  arch  in  the  wall  the  river  is 
seen  winding  quietly  along,  under  the  last  rays  of  the  declining 
sun.  What  a  change  'from  the  time  of  scourging  before  the 
crucifix ! 

As  a  counterpart  to  this  scene,  we  next  have  Luther  on 

Luther  at  Christuias  Eve  in  the  family  circle.  This  is  a 
Christmas.  picture    that    touches    the    heart.      The    Christ- 

mas-tides of  Luther's  life  might  indeed  be  considered  as  its 
epitome. 

Fourteen  times  Christmas  dawned  on  the  cradle,  or  on  the 
sports  of  Luther  as  a  peasant  boy.  Four  times  Christmas 
found  the  boy  in  the  school  at  Magdeburg.  Long  years  after, 
in  his  old  age,  he  gave  a  sketch  of  those  Christmas  days. 
"  At  the  season  when  the  Church  keeps  the  festival  of  Christ's 
birth,  we  scholars  went  through  the  hamlets  from  house  to 
house,  singing  in  quartette  the  familiar  hymns  about  Jesus, 
the  little  child  born  at  Bethlehem.  As  we  were  passing  a 
farm-yard  at  the  end  of  a  village,  a  farmer  came  out,  and  in 
his  coarse  voice,  offered  us  food.  His  heart  was  kind,  but  we 
had  become  so  familiar  with  the  threats  and  cruelty  of  the 
school,  that  w^e  fled  at  the  sound  of  harsh  tones.  But  his  re- 
peated calls  reassured  us,  and  we  returned  and  received  his 
gifts." 

Four  times  Christmas  found  him  amid  the  toils  of  the 
school  at  Erfurt.  Then  came  a  Christmas  in  which  the  angel 
voice  seemed  no  more   to  sing,  "  Peace  on  earth,  good  will 


LUTHER    AT    CHRISTMAS.  35 

toward  men ;  "  nothing  but  wrath  seemed  above  him,  and  the 
pains  of  death  around  him.  In  the  gray  stone  walls  of  the 
cloister  he  shut  himself  up  to  wrestle  with  dark  doubts  and 
agonizing  fears. 

Christmas  after  Christmas  came.  Some  sunshine  flickered 
in  successive  years  over  the  cell  of  the  monk.  The  gentle 
hand  of  him  who  came  as  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem  was  touch- 
ino-  and  healing  the  heart  corroded  with  care.  Gleams  of  in- 
dwelling greatness  began  to  break  forth  from  the  cloud  in 
which  he  had  been  folded. 

The  turn  of  the  autumn  leaves  of  1517  reminded  children 
that  Christmas  was  once  more  drawing  near ;  but  on  the  gales 
which  swept  those  leaves  from  the  trees  was  borne,  through 
all  Christendom,  the  first  sounds  of  a  mighty  battle  for  the 
right  of  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  all 
hearts  as  the  Saviour  of  the  race.  Years  followed,  but  Christ- 
mas and  all  festivals,  and  all  waking  and  all  dreaming 
thoughts  of  men  were  directed  to  one  great  life-question,  were 
absorbed  in  one  surpassing  interest.  In  half  of  Christendom, 
as  Christmas  eve  came  on,  the  soft  light  in  children's  eyes 
turned  to  a  fierce  glare,  as  lisping  amid  their  toys  and  echoing 
the  words  of  the  old,  they  spoke  of  the  traitor  to  the  mother 
of  the  blessed  Babe,  the  heretic  who  would  destroy  their 
Christmas  if  he  could.  In  the  other  half  of  Christendom  tbe 
ej^es  of  men  grew  bright,  and  those  of  women  were  suffused 
with  tears  of  gratitude,  and  children  shouted  for  gladness  at 
the  mention  of  the  name  of  one  who  had  led  back  the  race  to 
the  cradle,  and  taught  them  to  bow  there,  as  did  the  shep- 
herds in  childlike  trust  —  trust  not  in  the  mother,  but  in  ber 
holy  Child. 

All  days  were  Christmas  to  the  great  Restorer.  lie  had 
found  the  Christ,  and  when  he  was  not  kneeling  with  the 
shepherds,  he  was  singing  with  the  angels.  One  Christmas  he 
spent  in  his  rocky  Patmos,  but  a  starlight,  as  soft  as  that  of 
Palestine  on  the  mystic  night,  touched  every  pinnacle  of  the 
old  towers.  The  next  Christmas  passed  in  1:hat  circle  of  near 
friends  which  loved  and  was  loved  by  one  of  the  greatest 
and  warmest  hearts  that  ever  beat  in  human  bosoms.     Bat- 


36  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

tie  and  storm,  sorrow  and  sickness  came,  but  Christmas  came 
too. 

Then  came  a  bright  year,  not  the  most  glorious,  but  the 
most  happy  of  his  life.  That  great  home-nature  had  never 
had  a  home.  His  Christmas  had  been  spent  in  the  home  of 
others.  There  came  a  Christmas,  and  by  his  side,  as  he 
thanked  God  once  more  for  the  great  gift  to  whose  memory 
it  was  consecrated,  there  knelt  by  him  his  wife,  her  hand  in 
his,  and  her  face  turned  with  his  towards  the  world,  whose 
lio'ht  and  sons:  is  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem.  The  heaven  of  the 
presence  of  children  was  in  that  home  in  the  Christmas  of 
after  years.  Madeleine  and  Martin,  Paul  and  Margaret,  im- 
mortal by  their  birth,  were  the  olive-plants  around  the  Christ- 
mas tree.  In  the  beautiful  pictures  by  Konig,  one  of  the 
happiest  is  devoted  to  Luther  at  Christmas  in  the  family 
circle.  The  Christmas  tree  blazes  in  all  its  glory  in  the  centre ; 
the  tapers  imparting  a  new  ravishment  to  those  inconceivable 
fruits,  trumpets,  horses,  cakes,  and  dolls,  which  only  Christ- 
mas trees  can  bear.  On  Luther's  lap  kneels  his  youngest  child, 
clasping  him  around  the  neck.  Its  little  night-cap  and  slip 
and  bare  feet  show  that  it  has  been  kept  from  its  bed  to  see 
the  wonderful  sight.  On  Luther's  shoulder,  and  clasping  his 
hands  in  hers,  leans  Catherine,  with  the  light  of  love,  that 
light  which  can  beam  only  from  the  eye  of  a  devoted  wife  and 
mother,  shining  upon  him.  The  oldest  boy,  under  ^lelanch- 
thon's  direction,  is  aiming  with  a  cross-bow  at  an  apple  on  the 
tree,  recalling  to  our  mind  that  charming  letter  which  his 
father  wrote  from  Coburg  to  him,  when  he  was  only  four 
years  old,  in  which  are  detailed  the  glories  of  that  paradisiacal 
garden,  meant  for  all  good  boys,  where,  among  apples  and 
pears,  and  ponies  with  golden  bits  and  silver  saddles,  cross- 
bows of  silver  were  not  forgotten.* 

*  Luther's  letter  to  his  little  son  is  so  beautiful  and  characteristic  that  our 
readers,  though  they  have  read  it  a  hundred  times,  will  not  pass  it  by  as  we 
give  it  here.  It  was  written  in  1580,  from  Coburg,  when  Luther's  destiny,  and 
the  whole  future  of  his  work,  seemed  trembling  in  the  balance.  It  shows  that 
his  childlike  mind  was  at  once  the  cause  and  the  result  of  bis  repose  of  spirit  in 
God. 

'•Grace  and  peace  in  Christ,  my  dear  little  son.    I  am  very  glad  to  know  that 


LUTHER    AT    CHRISTMAS.  37 

At  the  table,  "  Muhme  Lebne"  (cousin  Helena,  not  a  with- 
ered old  woman,  as  she  is  generally  pictured,  but  Luther's 
young  niece,  who  was  not  married  till  Madeleine  was  nine 
years  old,)  is  showing  a  book  of  pictures  to  tlic  second  boy; 
the  third  boy  clasps  his  father's  knee  with  one  hand,  in  which, 
however,  he  manages  to  hold  a  string  also,  by  which  he  has 
been  drawing  along  a  knight  in  full  armor  on  horseback,  while 
with  the  other  hand  he  holds  up  a  hobby-horse.  Madeleine  is 
clasping  in  her  hand,  in  ecstasy,  the  little  angel  which  always 
stands  apeak  of  all  orthodox  Christmas  trees  —  when  it  can  be 
had  —  and  which,  when  the  curtain  of  the  gorgeous  child- 
drama  of  Christmas  eve  has  fallen,  is  given  to  the  angel  of  the 
household  —  the  best  of  the  children.  Her  doll  by  her  side  is 
forgotten,  the  full  light  from  the  tree  is  on  her  happy  face,  in 
which,  however,  there  is  an  air  of  thought,  something  more 
of  heavenly  musing  than  is  wont  to  be  pictured  upon  the  face 
of  a  child. 

you  learn  your  lessons  well,  and  love  to  say  your  prayers.  Keep  on  doing  so, 
my  little  boy,  and  when  I  come  home  I  will  bring  you  something  pretty  from  the 
fair.  I  know  a  beautiful  garden,  where  there  are  a  great  many  children  in  fine 
little  coats,  and  they  go  under  the  trees  and  gather  beautiful  apples  and  pears, 
cherries  and  plums:  they  sing,  and  run  about,  and  are  as  happy  as  they  can  be. 
Sometimes  they  ride  about  on  nice  little  ponies,  with  golden  bridles  and  silver 
saddles.  I  asked  the  man  whose  garden  it  is,  AVhat  little  children  are  these  ? 
And  he  told  me,  They  are  little  children  who  love  to  pray  and  learu,  and  are 
good.  Then  I  said:  My  dear  sir,  I  have  a  little  >  '\  at  home;  his  name  is  little 
Hans  Luther  ;  would  you  let  him  come  into  the  garden  too,  to  eat  some  of  these 
nice  apples  and  pears,  and  ride  on  these  fine  little  ponies,  and  play  with  these 
children  ?  The  man  said :  If  he  loves  to  say  his  prayers,  and  learn  his  lesson, 
and  is  a  good  boy,  he  may  come.  And  Philip  and  Jocelin  may  come  too  ;  and 
when  they  are  all  together,  they  can  play  upon  the  fife  and  drum  and  lute  and  all 
kinds  of  instruments,  and  skip  about  and  shoot  with  little  cross-bows.  He  then 
showed  me  a  beautiful  mossy  place  in  the  middle  of  the  garden,  for  thera  to  skip 
about  in,  with  a  great  many  golden  fifes,  and  drums,  and  silver  cross-bows.  The 
children  had  not  yet  had  their  dinner,  and  I  could  not  wait  to  see  them  play,  but 
I  said  to  the  man:  My  dear  sir,  I  will  go  away  and  write  all  about  it  to  my  little 
son,  John,  and  tell  him  to  be  fond  of  saying  his  prayers,  and  learn  well,  and  be 
good,  so  that  he  may  come  into  this  garden  ;  but  he  has  a  cousin  Lehne,  whom 
he  must  bring  along  with  him.  The  man  said.  Very  well,  go  write  to  him. 
Now,  my  dear  little  son,  love  your  lessons,  and  your  prayers,  and  tell  Philip 
and  Jocelin  to  do  so  too,  that  you  may  all  come  to  the  garden.  May  God  bless 
you.     Give  cousin  Lehne  my  love,  and  kiss  her  for  me." 


38  CONSERVATIVE   BEFORMATIOK 

Oh,  happy  Christmas  I  thou  majest  be  the  prelude  to  wail 
ing.  The  little  coffin  may  follow  the  Christmas  tree  within 
our  door.  Thy  babe,  0  Bethlehem,  turned  in  the  sleep  of  that 
hallowed  night,  his  pure,  pale  face  toward  Gethsemane.  The 
ano;el  of  the  Christmas  tree  could  not  guard  the  home  from 
life's  sorrows.  Days  of  grief  are  coming  thick  and  fast  upon 
that  noble  one,  whom  heaven,  earth,  and  hell  knew  so  well. 
Carrying  the  weight  of  a  wounded  heart,  that  form  was 
bowed,  which  neither  kings,  nor  popes,  nor  devils  could  bend. 
The  candles  of  the  Christmas  tree  of  1542  were  not  mirrored 
in  the  eyes  of  his  beautiful  and  darling  Madeleine.  Those 
gentle  eyes  had  been  closed  by  her  father's  hand  three  months 
l^efore  — the  ruddy  lips  parting  in  joy  at  the  Christmas  festival, 
one  year  ago,  had  received  the  last  kiss  —  their  music  was 
hushed  in  the  home,  and  the  little  ones  grew  still  in  the  very 
flush  of  their  joy,  as  they  thought  that  their  sister  was  lying 
in  the  church-yard,  with  the  chill  snows  drifting  around  her 
grave. 

The  old  man's  heart  was  longing  for  Christmas  in  heaven, 
and  his  sigh  was  heard. 

Through  threescore  and  two  years  he  had  on  earth  opened 
his  eyes  upon  the  natal  day  of  our  Redeemer.  When  the  next 
Christmas  came  he  stood  by  that  Redeemer's  side  in  glory; 
and  transfigured  in  heaven's  light,  and  in  surpassing  sweet- 
ness, there  stood  with  him  that  fair  girl  who  had  gazed  upon 
the  angel  of  the  Christmas  tree  with  dreamy  eyes,  which  told 
that  even  then,  in  thought,  she  was  already  in  heaven. 

As  we  think  upon  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  artist  in  her 
attitude  and  occupation,  the  heart  grows,  not  wholly  unpre- 
pared for  the  next  and  last  of  these  family  scenes.  Luther 
kneels  by  the  coffin  of  this  same  lovely  daughter.  The  struggle 
is  over  ;'  a  holy  serenity  illumines  his  face.  He  has  given  her 
back,  with  no  rebellious  murmur,  to  her  God.     To  those  who 

inthpraiuiMi-  ^^^^®  contcmplatcd  the  character  of  Luther  only 
dei'ine.  in   lils   publlc   life,   it    might    appear   strange   to 

assert  that  there  never  was  a  heart  more  susceptible  than 
his  to  all  that  is  tender  in  human  emotion,  or  melting  in  hu- 
man sympathies.     The  man  who,  while  he  was  shaking  to  its 


LUTHER    AND    MADELFANE.  39 

foundation  the  mightiest  dominion  the  world  ever  saw,  re- 
mained unshaken,  was  in  his  social  and  domestic  life  a  perfect 
example  of  gentleness.  "  Perhaps  no  man  of  so  humble,  peace- 
able disposition  ever  filled  the  world  with  contention.  We 
cannot  but  see  that  he  would  have  loved  privacy,  quiet  dili- 
gence in  the  shade ;  that  it  was  against  his  will  he  ever  became 
a  notoriety."  —  "They  err  greatly  who  imagine  that  this  man's 
courage  was  ferocity  —  no  accusation  could  be  more  unjust. 
A  most  gentle  heart  withal,  full  of  pity  and  love,  as  indeed  the 
truly  valiant  heart  ever  is.  I  know  few  things  more  touching 
than  those  soft  breathings  of  affection,  soft  as  a  child's  or  a 
mother's,  in  this  great  wild  heart  of  Luther.  Luther  to  a 
slight  observer  might  have  seemed  a  timid,  weak  man  ;  mod- 
esty, affectionate  shrinking  tenderness,  the  chief  distinction  of 
him.  It  is  a  noble  valor  which  is  roused  in  a  heart  like  this, 
once  stirred  up  into  defiance ;  all  kindled  into  a  heavenly 
blaze."  *  How  open  his  heart  was  to  those  influences  which 
sanctify  whilst  they  sadden,  he  showed  on  the  death  of  Eliza- 
beth, his  second  child,  in  infancy:  "  My  little  daughter  is  dead. 
I  am  surprised  how  sick  at  heart  she  has  left  me ;  a  woman's 
heart,  so  shaken  am  I.  I  could  not  have  believed  that  a 
father's  soul  would  have  been  so  tender  toward  his  child." 
"  I  can  teach  you  what  it  is  to  be  a  father,  especially  a  father 
of  one  of  that  sex  which,  far  more  than  sons,  has  the  power  of 
awakening  our  most  tender  emotions."  Yet  more  touching 
was  that  event  to  which  our  artist  has  consecrated  this  pic- 
ture. Madeleine,  his  third  child,  and  second  daughter,  died  in 
September,  1542,  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  her  age  —  four  years 
before  her  father.  "  Luther  bore  this  blow  with  wonderful 
firmness.  As  his  daughter  lay  very  ill,  he  exclaimed,  as  he 
raised  his  eyes  to  heaven,  '  I  love  her  much,  but,  0  my  God ! 
if  it  be  thy  will  to  take  her  hence,  I  would  give  her  up  to  thee 
without  one  selfish  murmur.'  One  day  she  sufiered  violent 
pain :  he  approached  her  bed,  and  taking  hold  of  her  small 
thin  hands,  pressed  them  again  and  again  to  his  lips.  '  My 
dearest  child,  my  own  sweet  and  good  Madeleine,  I  know  you 
would  gladly  stay  with  your  father  here  ;  but  in  heaven  there 

*  Cail^le's  Herues  and  Ilero-WorsLip,  p.  125. 


40  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

is  a  better  Father  waiting  for  you.  You  will  be  equally  ready 
to  go  to  your  Father  in  heaven,  will  you  not?'  '  0  yes,  dear 
father,'  answered  the  dying  child,  '  let  the  will  of  God  be  done.' 
'  Dear  little  girl,'  he  continued,  '  the  spirit  is  willing,  but  the 
flesh  is  weak.'  He  walked  to  and  fro  in  agitation,  and  said, 
'  Ah,  yes  1  I  have  loved  this  dear  child  too  much.  If  the  flesh 
is  so  strong,  what  becomes  of  the  spirit  ?  '  Turning  to  a  friend 
who  had  come  to  visit  him :  '  See,'  said  he, '  God  has  not  given 
such  good  gifts  these  thousand  years  to  any  bishop  as  He  has 
to  me.  We  may  glorify  ourselves  in  the  gifts  of  God.  Alas  1 
I  feel  humbled  that  I  cannot  rejoice  now  as  I  ought  to  do,  nor 
render  sufiicient  thanks  to  God.  I  try  to  lift  up  my  heart 
from  time  to  time  to  our  Lord  in  some  little  hymn,  and  to 
feel  as  I  ought  to  do.'— '  Well,  whether  we  live  or  die,  we 
are  the  Lord's.'" 

The  night  before  Madeleine's  death,  her  mother  had  a  dream, 
in  which  she  saw  two  fair  youths  beautifully  attired,  who 
came  as  if  they  wished  to  take  Madeleine  away  with  them,  and 
conduct  her  to  be  married.     When  ^Nlelanchthon   came   the 
next  morning  and  asked  the  lady  how  it  was  with  her  daughter, 
she  related  her  dream,  at  which  he  seemed  frightened,  and  re- 
marked to  others,  "that  the  young  men  were  two  holy  angels, 
sent  to  carry  the  maiden  to  the  true  nuptials  of  a  heavenly 
kingdom."     She  died  that  same  day.     When  the  last  agony 
came  on,  and  the  countenance  of  the  young  girl  was  clouded 
with  the  dark  hues  of  approaching  death,  her  father  threw 
himself  on  his  knees  by  her  bedside,  and  with  clasped  hands, 
weeping   bitterly,  prayed   to  God  that   he  would    spare  her. 
Her  consciousness  ceased,  and  resting  in  her  father's  arms  she 
breathed  her  last.     Catherine,  her  mother,  was  in  a  recess  of 
the  room,  unable,  from  excess  of  grief,  to  look  upon  the  death- 
bed of  her  child.     Luther  softly  laid  the  head  of  his  beloved 
one  upon  the  pillow,  and  repeatedly  exclaimed :  "  Poor  child, 
thou  hast  found  a  Father  in  heaven !     0  my  God  1  let  thy  will 
be  done !  "     Melanchthon  then  observed  that  the  love  of  pa- 
rents for  their  children  is  an  image  of  the  divine  love  impressed 
on  the  hearts  of  men.    God  loves  mankind  no  less  than  parents 
do  their  children. 


LUTHER    AND    MADELEINE.  41 

On  the  following  day  she  was  interred.  When  they  placed 
her  on  the  bier,  her  father  exclaimed,  "  My  poor,  dear  little 
Madeleine,  you  are  at  rest  now  ! "  The  workman  had  made 
the  cofRn  somewhat  too  small.  "  Thy  couch  here,"  said  Lu- 
ther, "is  narrow;  but  oh!  how  beautiful  is  that  on  which  thou 
restest  above!"  Then  looking  long  and  fixedly  at  her,  he 
said,  "Yes,  dear  child,  thou  shalt  rise  again,  shalt  shine  as  the 
stars,  yes,  like  the  sun.  .  .  I  am  joyful  in  spirit ;  but  oh,  how 
sad  in  the  flesh  !  It  is  a  strange  feeling,  this,  to  know  she  is 
so  certainly  at  rest,  that  she  is  happy,  and  yet  to  be  so  sad." 
"When  the  body  was  being  lowered  into  the  grave,  "  Farewell ! " 
he  exclaimed,  "  Farewell,  thou  lovely  star,  we  shall  meet 
again." 

The  people  in  great  crowds  attended  the  funeral,  showing 
the  deepest  sympathy  with  his  grief.  When  the  bearers  came 
to  his  house  and  expressed  their  sorrow,  he  replied,  "  Ah, 
grieve  no  more  for  her  ;  I  have  given  to  heaven  another  angel. 
Oh !  that  we  may  each  experience  such  a  death :  such  a  death 
I  would  gladly  die  this  moment."  "  True,"  said  a  bystander ;  to 
whom  Luther  replied,  "Flesh  is  flesh,  and  blood  is  blood.  But 
there  may  be  joy  in  the  heart,  whilst  there  is  sorrow  in  the 
countenance.  It  is  the  flesh  that  weeps  and  is  afliicted."  At 
the  grave  the  language  of  condolence  was  oflered.  "  We  know 
how  you  suffer."  —  "  Thanks  for  your  sympathy,"  said  he,  "but 
I  am  not  sad  —  my  dear  angel  is  in  heaven." 

Whilst  some  laborers  were  singing  at  the  grave  the  words 
"  Lord  remember  not  our  sins  of  old,"  he  was  heard  to  sio-h : 
"  Ko,  gracious  Lord  ;  nor  our  sins  of  to-day,  nor  of  times  tc 
come." 

When  the  grave-digger  threw  the  earth  on  the  coflSn,  "  Fix 
your  eyes,"  said  Luther,  "  on  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  ; 
heaven  is  my  daughter's  portion  — •  body  and  soul  —  all  is  the 
arrangement  of  God  in  his  providence.  Why  should  we  re- 
pine ?  Is  it  not  His  will  that  is  accomplished  ?  We  are  the 
children  of  eternity.     I  have  begotten  a  child  for  heaven." 

On  returning  from  the  burial,  he  said,  amongst  other  things, 
"The  fate  of  our  children,  and  above  all,  of  girls,  is  ever  a 
cause  of  uneasiness.     I  do  not  fear  so  much  for  boys ;  they  can 


42  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATTOK. 

find  a  living  anywhere,  provided  they  know  how  to  work. 
But  it  is  different  with  girls  ;  they,  poor  things,  must  search 
for  employment,  staff  in  hand.  A  boy  can  enter  the  schools, 
and  attain  eminence,  but  a  girl  cannot  do  much  to  advance 
herself;  and  is  easily  led  away  by  bad  example,  and  is  lost. 
Therefore,  without  regret,  I  give  up  this  dear  one  to  our 
Lord.  Children  die  without  anguish  ;  they  know  not  the  bit- 
ter pains  of  death  ;  it  is  as  if  they  fell  asleep." 

This  afiliction  struck  Luther  to  the  heart.  He  looked  upon 
it  as  an  admonition  of  Heaven  :  it  was  another  thunderbolt. 
The  first  had  taken  from  him  the  friend  of  his  youth,  Alexis : 
the  second  snatched  from  him  an  idolized  child,  the  joy  of  his 
old  age.  From  this  period,  all  his  letters  are  tinged  with 
melancholy :  the  raven  wing  of  death  was  ever  fluttering  in 
his  ear.  On  receiving  a  letter  from  the  Elector,  who  wished 
him  many  years  of  long  life,  he  shook  his  head  mournfully, 
and  in  reply  to  his  fi'iend  wrote :  '  The  pitcher  has  gone  too 
often  to  the  well;  it  will  break  at  last.'  One  day,  while  preach- 
ing, he  drew  tears  from  his  audience,  by  announcing  to  them 
his  approaching  death.  ^'  The  world  is  tired  of  me,"  said  he, 
"  and  I  am  tired  of  the  world;  soon  shall  we  be  divorced  —  the 
traveller  will  soon  quit  his  lodging." 

Soon  after  her  death,  he  wrote  to  a  friend  :  "  Report  has,  no 
doubt,  informed  you  of  the  transplanting  of  my  daughter  to  the 
kingdom  of  Christ ;  and  although  my  wife  and  I  ought  only 
to  think  of  oftering  up  joyful  thanks  to  the  Almighty  for  her 
happy  end,  by  which  she  has  been  delivered  from  all  the  snares 
of  the  world,  nevertheless,  the  force  of  natural  afiection  is  so 
great,  that  I  cannot  forbear  indulging  in  tears,  sighs,  and 
groans  ;  say  rather  my  heart  dies  within  me.  I  feel,  engraven 
on  my  inmost  soul,  her  features,  Avords,  and  actions;  all  that 
she  was  to  me,  in  life  and  health,  and  on  her  sick-l>ed  — my 
dear,  my  dutiful  child.  The  death  of  Christ  himself  (and  oh  ! 
what  are  all  deaths  in  comparison?)  cannot  tear  her  away  from 
my  thoughts,  as  it  should.  She  was,  as  you  know,  so  sweet, 
so  amiable,  so  full  of  tenderness." 

When  the  coffin  had  been  covered  with  earth,  a  small  tomb- 
Btone  was  placed  over  it,  on  which  was  the  name  of  the  child, 


LUTHER'S   LAST   BAYS.  43 

her  age,  the  day  of  her  death,  and  a  text  of  Scripture.  Some 
time  after,  when  Luther  could  apply  himself  to  lahor,  he  com- 
posed a  Latin  inscription,  wliich  was  carved  upon  a  monu- 
mental slah :  and  which  breathes  a  spirit  of  subdued  melan- 
choly, and  resignation  to  God's  will: 

"Dormio  cum  Sanctis  hie  Magdalena,  Luthcri 
Filia,  et  hoc  strato  tecta  quicsco  meo ; 
Filia  mortis  eram,  peccati  semine  nata, 
Sanguine  sed  vivo  Christe  redempta  tuo." 

<'I,  Luther's  daughter  Madeleine,  with  the  Saints  here  sleep, 
And  covered,  calmly  rest  on  this  my  couch  of  earth; 
Daughter  of  death  I  was,  born  of  the  seed  of  sin, 
But  by  thy  precious  blood  redeemed,  0  Christ!  I  live." 

"We  looked,"  says  Audin,  the  Romish  historian,  who,  ani- 
mated by  a  strange  enthusiasm  for  the  great  opposer  of  the 
corruptions  of  his  Church,  followed  his  footsteps  as  a  pilgrim 
—  "we  looked  for  this  tomb  in  the  cemetery  at  Wittenberg, 
but  could  not  find  it."  The  mild,  regular  features,  the  gentle 
eyes,  the  broad  forehead,  the  flowing  hair,  and  womanly  repose, 
which  the  picture  *  of  this  child  presents,  are  all  in  keeping 
with  the  image  which  her  father's  grief  has  impressed  upon 
the  heart ;  and  though  the  searcher  looks  in  vain  for  the  stone 
which  marks  her  lowly  resting-place,  her  memory  shall  dwell 
sweetly  in  the  heart  of  the  world,  with  that  of  her  more  than 
illustrious  father,  to  the  end  of  time. 

The  next  two  pictures  illustrate  Luther's  strength  of  char- 
acter while  in  personal  jeopardy.  The  first  rep-  Lather's  last 
resents  Luther  and  Kohlhase  —  the  second,  Lu-  ^^y^"-  ^'^''^*'^- 
ther  among  the  dying  and  the  dead,  during  the  plague.  The 
last  three  pictures  present  the  closing  scenes  of  his  life  —  his 
journey  to  Mansfeld  on  a  mission  of  peace  and  conciliation, 
his  death  and  burial.  During  his  last  hours  he  repeated  fre- 
quently the  words :  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit.  Thou  hast  redeemed  me,  0  God  of  truth."  When  Jonas 
and  Coelius  asked  him,  "Reverend  father,  do  you  die  faithful 

*  This  portrait  is  given  in  Juncker's  interesting  work  on  the  medals  of  the 
Reformation. 


44  COXSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

to  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  you  have  preached? "  He  replied 
distinctly,  "  I  do  !  "  These  were  his  Last  words  on  earth,  and 
in  the  first  hour  of  February  18th,  1546,  he  fell  asleep  in  Jesus. 
*'i!^ow,"  said  Melanchthon,  as  he  stood  by  the  coffin,  —  "  now 
he  is  united  with  the  prophets  of  whom  he  loved  to  speak,  now 
they  greet  him  as  their  fellow-laborer,  and  with  him  thank 
the  Lord  who  collects  and  upholds  his  Church  to  the  end  of 
time." 

In  addition  to  the  descriptive  matter  that  accompanies  each 
picture,  we  have  "  Historical  Sketches  "  by  Gelzer.  First  we 
have  an  introduction,  and  then  four  sketches.  The  first  sketch 
presents  the  preparation  and  ground-work  of  the  Reformation 
—  the  Reformation  before  Luther,  and  the  great  work  which 
took  place  in  him  before  he  came  forth  to  the  world.  The 
second  sketch  embraces  the  contest  with  Rome;  the  third, 
"  Reformation  and  Revolution  ; "  the  last,  the  Reformer  and 
his  work. 

There  was  one  picture  promised  us,  which  we  would  fain 

^.,    ,     ,,    ,  have  had,  but  which  is  not  o-iven.    It  is  one  which 

Charles  V.   at  '  O  ^ 

Luther's  tomb,  counccts  itsclf  wltli  tlic  Providcnce  of  God  watch- 
ing over  the  ashes  of  his  servant,  whose  body  he  had  protected 
in  life.  Luther  had  been  "taken  from  the  evil  to  come." 
The  year  after  his  death  Wittenberg  was  filled  with  the  troops 
of  Charles  Y.,  many  of  whom  were  full  of  intense  hate  to  the 
great  Reformer.  One  of  the  soldiers  gave  Luther's  effigies  in 
the  Castle-church  two  stabs  with  his  dagger.  The  Spaniards 
earnestly  solicited  their  Emperor  to  destroy  the  tomb,  and  dig 
up  and  burn  the  remains  of  Luther,  as  this  second  Huss  could 
not  now  be  burned  alive.  To  this  diabolical  proposition  the 
Emperor  sternly  replied :  "  My  work  with  Luther  is  done  ;  he 
has  now  another  Judge,  whose  sphere  I  may  not  invade.  I 
war  with  the  living,  not  with  the  dead."  And  when  he  found 
that  the  efi*ort  was  not  dropped,  to  bring  about  this  sacri- 
legious deed,  he  gave  orders  that  any  violation  of  Luther's 
tomb  should  be  followed  by  the  death  of  the  offender.*  Charles, 
it  is  said,  died  a  Protestant  on  the  great  central  doctrine  of 

*  Bayle's  Dictionary,   (II.   II)     Juncker"s   Guldene   uud    Silberne  Ehren  Ge- 
dachtniss  Lutheri.     Frauckf.  und  Leipz.  170G,  p.  1281 


LESSIKC-^HEIKE.  45 

justification  by  faith.  May  we  not  hope  that  after  the  war- 
fare of  life,  Charles,  the  most  ambitious  of  the  Emperors  of  his 
age,  and  Luther,  the  greatest  disturber  of  his  plans  of  ambition, 
have  reached  a  common  consummation. 

It  is  a  hopeful  thing  that  the  German  heart,  through  all 
religious  and  civil  convulsions,  has  remained  true  to  the  mem- 
ory of  Luther.  Romanists  have  emulated  Protest-  L„ti.er  chamc 
ants  in  his  praise ;  Rationalists  have  seemed  to  ^''''''■'•^ 
venerate  him  whilst  they  were  laboring  to  undo  his  work. 
After  three  centuries  of  birth-tliroes,  Germany  feels  that  she 
has  given  to  the  w^orld  no  second  Luther.  The  womb  of  Time 
bears  such  fruit  but  once  in  thousands  of  years.  "  In  such 
reverence  do  I  hold  Luther,"  says  Lessing,  "  that  I  rejoice  in 
havins:  been  able  to  find  some  defects  in  him  ;  for 

^  1  r>  1  Lessins. 

I  have,  in  fact,  been  in  imminent  danger  ot  mak- 
ing him  an  object  of  idolatrous  veneration.  The  proofs,  that 
in  some  things  he  was  like  other  men,  are  to  me  as  precious 
as  the  most  d^azzling  of  his  virtues."— "  What  a  shame,"  says 
Hamann,  (1759,)  "to  our  times,  that  the  spirit  of  this  man, 
who  founded  our  Church,  so  lies  beneath  the  ashes  !  What  a 
power  of  eloquence,  what  a  spirit  of  interpretation,  what  a 
prophet!  "  —  "We  are  not  able  to  place  ourselves  even  up  to 
the  point  from  which  he  started." 

"  He  created  the  German  language,"  says  Heine.  "  He  was 
not  only  the  greatest,  but  the  most  German  man  of  our  history. 
In  his  character  all  the  faults  and  all  the  virtues  ^^.^^ 
of  the  Germans  are  combined  on  the  largest  scale. 
Then  he  had  qualities  wdiich  are  very  seldom  found  united, 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  regard  as  irreconcilable  antag- 
onisms. He  was,  at  the  same  time,  a  dreamy  mystic  and  a 
practical  man  of  action.  His  thoughts  had  not  only  wings, 
but  hands.  He  spoke  and  he  acted.  He  was  not  only  the 
tongue,  but  the  sword  of  his  time.  When  he  had  plagued 
himself  all  day  long  with  his  doctrinal  distinctions,  in  the 
evening  he  took  his  flute  and  gazed  at  the  stars,  dissolved  in 
melody  and  devotion.  He  coukl  be  soft  as  a  tender  maiden. 
Sometimes  he  was  wild  as  the  storm  that  uproots  the  oak,  and 
then  again  he  was  gentle  as  the  zephyr  that  dallies  with  the 


46  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

violet.     lie  was  full  of  the  most  awful  reverence  and  of  self- 
sacrifice  in  honor  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    He  could  merge  himself 
entire  in  pure  spirituality.     And  yet  he  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  glories  of  this  world,  and  knew  how  to  prize  them. 
He  was  a  complete  man,  I  would  say  an  ahsolute  man,  one  in 
whom  matter  and  spirit  were  not  divided.     To  call  him  a 
spiritualist,  therefore,  would  be  as  great  an  error  as  to  call 
him  a  sensualist.    How  shall  I  express  it  ?     He  had  something 
orio-inal,  incomprehensible,  miraculous,  such  as  we  find  in  all 
providential  men  —  something  invincible,  spirit-possessed." 
"  A  fiery  and  daring  spirit,"  Menzel  calls  him.     "  A  hero 
in  the  garb  of  a  monk."     But  the  most  interesting 
testimony  is  that  borne  by  Frederick  Schlegel ;  in- 
teresting not  only  because  of  the  greatness  of  its  source,  but 
because  based  on  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  person  of  whom 
he  speaks,  because  uttered  by  a  devoted  and  conscientious  Eo- 
manist,  and  accompanied  b}^  such  remarks  as  to 
schiege.       gi^Q^j  that,  deep  as  is  his  admiration  of  Luther, 
he  has  in  no  respect  been  blinded  by  it.     We  will   give  ex- 
tracts from  his  three  great  works:   on  *'  the  History  of  Liter- 
ature:" on  "Modern  History:"  and  on  the  "  Philosophy  of 
History." 

"  I  have  already  explained  in  what  way  the  poetry  and  art 
of  the  middle  age  were  lost,  during  the  controversies  of  the 
sixteenth,  and  how  our  language  itself  became  corrupted. 
There  was  one  instrument  by  which  the  influx  of  barbarism 
was  opposed,  and  one  treasure  which  made  up  for  what  had 
been  lost  —  I  mean  the  German  translation  of  the  Bible.  It  is 
well  known  to  you,  that  all  true  philologists  regard  this  as  the 
standard  and  model  of  classical  expression  in  the  German  lan- 
guage ;  and  that  not  only  Klopstock,  but  many  other  writers 
of  the  first  rank,  have  fashioned  their  style  and  selected  their 
phrases  according  to  the  rules  of  this  version.  It  is  worthy  of 
notice,  that  in  no  other  modern  language  have  so  many  Bibli- 
cal words  and  phrases  come  into  the  use  of  common  life  as  in 
ours.  I  perfectly  agree  with  those  writers  who  consider  this 
circumstance  as  a  fortunate  one ;  and  I  believe  that  from  it 
has  been  derived  not  a  little  of  that  power,  life,  and  simplicity. 


SCIILEGEL.  47 

by  which,  I  think,  the  best  German  writers  are  distinguished 
from  all  other  moderns.  The  Catholic,  as  w^ell  as  the  modern 
Protestant  scholar,  has  many  things  to  find  fault  with  in  this 
translation;  but  these,  after  all,  regard  only  individual  pas- 
sages. In  these  later  times,  w^e  have  witnessed  an  attempt  to 
render  a  new  and  intlonal  translation  of  the  Bible  an  instru- 
ment of  propagating  the  doctrines  of  the  illuminati ;  and  we 
have  seen  this  too  much  even  in  the  hands  of  Catholics  them- 
selves. But  the  instant  this  folly  had  blowni  over,  w^e  returned, 
with  increased  affection,  to  the  excellent  old  version  of  Luther. 
He,  indeed,  has  not  the  wdiole  merit  of  producing  it.  "We  owe 
to  him,  nevertheless,  the  highest  gratitude  for  placing  in  our 
hands  this  most  noble  and  manly  model  of  German  expression. 
Even  in  his  own  wa^itings  he  displays  a  most  original  eloquence, 
surpassed  by  few  names  that  occur  in  the  wdiole  history  of  lit- 
erature. He  had,  indeed,  all  those  qualities  which  lit  a  man 
to  be  a  revolutionary  orator.  This  revolutionary  eloquence  is 
manifest,  not  only  in  his  half-political  and  business  w^ritings, 
such  as  the  Address  to  the  I^obility  of  the  German  ^N^ation,  but 
in  all  the  works  which  he  has  left  behind  him.  In  almost  the 
whole  of  them,  we  perceive  the  marks  of  mighty  internal  con- 
flict. Two  worlds  appear  to  be  contending  for  the  mastery 
over  the  mighty  soul  of  this  man,  so  favored  by  God  and 
nature.  Throughout  all  his  wa-itings  there  prevails  a  struggle 
between  light  and  darkness,  faith  and  passion,  God  and  him- 
self. The  choice  which  he  made  —  the  use  to  wdiich  he  de- 
voted his  majestic  genius  —  these  are  subjects  upon  w^hich  it  is 
even  now  quite  impossible  for  me  to  speak,  so  as  to  j^lease  you 
all.  As  to  the  intellectual  power  and  greatness  of  Luther, 
abstracted  from  all  consideration  of  the  uses  to  which  he  ap- 
plied them,  I  think  there  are  few,  even  of  his  owm  disciples, 
who  appreciate  him  highly  enough.  His  coadjutors  were 
mostly  mere  scholars,  indolent  and  enlightened  men  of  the 
common  order.  It  was  upon  him  and  his  soul  that  the  fate  of 
Europe  depended.  He  w^as  the  man  of  his  age  and  nation."  * 
Let  us  hear  another  expression  of  the  opinion  of  this  great 
man.     "  That  the  Reformation  did  not  at  its  very  commence- 

*  Lectures  on  the  History  of  Literature,  New  York,  1841,  p.  348-350. 


48  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

ment  become  a  revelation  of  this  kind,  we  are  chiefly  indebted 
to  Luther,  (a  revohition  in  which  war  and  the  flames  of  popu- 
lar passion  took  their  own  destructive  course.)    He  it  was  Avho 
thus  gave  permanency  to  the  Reformation.     Had  not  Luther 
opposed  with  all  his  power  the  dangerous  errors  into  which 
some  of  his  adherents  at  the  very  first  fell ;  had  these  fanatical 
doctrines  of  universal  equality,  and  of  the  abolition  of  all  tem- 
poral authority  as  a  thing  superfluous  in  the  new  state  of  things, 
obtained  the  upper  hand  ;  had  the  so-called  Reformation  of 
faith  and  of  the  Church  become  wholly  and  entirely  a  political 
and  national  revolution  ;  in  that  case,  the  first  shock  of  civil 
war  would  have  been  incontestably  more   terrific    and    more 
universal  ;  but  it  would,  probably,  when  the  storm  had  blown 
over,  have  subsided  of  itself,  and  a  return  to  the  old  order  of 
things  would  have  ensued.     The   princes  in  particular  were 
indebted  to  Luther  for  having  contributed  so  vigorously  to 
stifle  the  flames  of  rebellion ;  and  he  must  thereby  have  gained 
consideration  even  among  those  who  disapproved  of  his  doc- 
trines and  proceedings.     His  personal  character  in  general  was 
excellently  adapted  to  consolidate   and  perpetuate  his  party. 
The  great  energy,  which  gave  him  such  a  decided  preponder- 
ance over  all  who  co-operated  with   him,  preserved  as  much 
unity  as  was  at  all  possible  in  such  a  state  of  moral  ferment. 
With  whatever  passionate  violence  Luther  may  have  expressed 
himself,  he  nevertheless,  in  his  principles  and  modes  of  think- 
ing, preserved  in  many  points  the  precise  medium  that  was 
necessary  to  keep  his  party  together  as  a  distinct  party.     Had 
he  at  the  first  beginning  gone  farther,  had  he  sanctioned  the 
fanaticism  adverted  to  above,  the  whole  aftair  would  then  have 
fallen  sooner  to  the  ground.     The  very  circumstance,  that  he 
did  not  at  first  secede  from  the  ancient  faith  more  than  he  did, 
procured  him  so  many  and  such  important  adherents,  and  gave 
such  strength  to  his  party.     He  was  undeniably  gifted  with 
great  qualities.     Luther's  eloquence  made  him  a  man  of  the 
people ;  his  principles,  however,  despite  his  passionate  expres- 
sion of  them,  remained,  nevertheless,  in   essentials,  both  with 
regard  to  political  subjects  and  to  matters  of  faith,  within  cer- 
tain limits;  and  joined  to  that  circumstance,  the  very  obstinacy 


SCniEGEL.  49 

whicli  his  friends  complained  of,  consolidated  and  united  the 
new  party  and  gave  it  a  permanent  strength."* 

"With  some  extracts  from  the  "  Philosophy  of  History,"  by 
the  same  distinguished  author,  we  shall  close  the  illustrations 
from  his  hand. 

"  In  the  first  place,  as  regards  the  Reformation,  it  is  evident 
of  itself,  that  a  man  who  accomplished  so  mighty  a  revolution 
in  the  human  mind,  and  in  his  age,  could  have  been  endowed 
with  no  ordinary  powers  of  intellect,  and  no  common  strength 
of  character.  Even  his  writings  display  an  astonishing  bold- 
ness and  energy  of  thought  and  language,  united  with  a  spirit 
of  impetuous,  passionate  and  convulsive  enthusiasm.  The 
opinion,  as  to  the  use  which  was  made  of  these  high  powers 
of  genius,  must,  of  course,  vary  -with  the  religious  principles 
of  each  individual ;  but  the  extent  of  these  intellectual  endow- 
ments themselves,  and  the  strength  and  perseverance  of  char- 
acter with  which  they  were  united,  must  be  universally  ad- 
mitted. Many  who  did  not  afterwards  adhere  to  the  new 
opinions,  still  thought,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, that  Luther  was  the  real  man  for  his  age,  who  had 
received  a  high  vocation  to  accomplish  the  great  work  of  regen- 
eration, the  strong  necessity  of  which  was  then  universally 
felt.  If,  at  this  great  distance  of  time,  we  pick  out  of  the 
writings  of  this  individual  many  very  harsh  expressions,  nay, 
particular  words  which  are  not  only  coarse  but  absolutely 
gross,  nothing  of  any  moment  can  be  proved  or  determined  by 
such  selections.  Indeed,  the  age  in  general,  not  only  in  Ger- 
many, but  in  other  very  highly  civilized  countries,  was  char- 
acterized by  a  certain  coarseness  in  manners  and  language,  and 
by  a  total  absence  of  all  excessive  polish  and  over-refinement 
of  character.  But  this  coarseness  would  have  been  productive 
of  no  very  destructive  efiects  ;  for  intelligent  men  well  knew 
that  the  wounds  of  old  abuses  lay  deep,  and  were  ulcerated  in 
their  very  roots ;  and  no  one,  therefore,  was  shocked  if  the 
knife  destined  to  amputate  abuses,  cut  somewhat  deep.  It 
was  by  the  conduct  of  Luther  and  the  influence  which  he 
thereby  acquired,  that   the  Reformation  was   promoted  and 

*  Lectures  on  Modern  History,  London,  184:9,  p.  169. 


50  COKSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

consolidated.  W,itliout  this,  rrotestantism  would  have  sunk 
into  the  lawless  anarchy  which  marked  the  proceedings  of 
the  Hussites,  and  to  which  the  War  of  the  Peasants  rapidly 
tended ;  and  it  would  inevitably  have  been  suppressed,  like  all 
the  earlier  popular  commotions — for,  under  the  latter  form, 
Protestantism  may  be  said  to  have  sprung  up  several  centuries 
before.  Xone  of  the  other  heads  and  leaders  of  the  new  re- 
ligious party  had  the  power,  or  were  in  a  situation  to  uphold 
the  Protestant  religion :  its  present  existence  is  solely  and  en- 
tirely the  work  and  the  deed  of  one  man,  unique  in  his  way, 
and  who  holds  unquestionably  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world.  Much  was  staked  on  the  soul  of  that  man, 
and  this  was  in  every  respect  a  mighty  and  critical  moment  in 
the  annals  of  mankind  and  the  march  of  time." 

It  will,  perhaps,  not  be  wholly  a  thankless  work  to  add  here 
some  of  the  attestations  of  distinguished  men  of  every  shade 
of  opinion,  and  in  the  most  varied  positions,  which  demon- 
strate how  profound  and  many-sided  was  that  character  which 
left  so  great  an  impress  on  them  all.  "  Martin  Luther,"  says 
Dr.  Bancroft,  "  a  man  of  the  most  powerful  mind  and  intrepid 
character,  who  persisted  resolutely  in  his  defence 
of  Christian  liberty  and  Christian  truth;  and  by 
the  blessing  of  God  he  triumphed  over  all  opposition.  His 
name  is  identified  in  every  country  with  the  reformed  religion, 
and  will  be  venerated  and  esteemed  in  every  subsequent  age, 
by  all  who  prize  religious  freedom,  and  set  a  value  on  religious 
privileges."  '•' 

This  is  the  lans-uao-e  of  a  Cono;re2;ational  Unitarian,  in  Kew 

England.     Let  us  hear  from  a  high-church  English  Bishop, 

eminent  for  all  that  intellect  can  confer,  a  testimony  no  less 

strong:  "  Martin  Luther's  life,"  says  Bishop  Atterbury,  "  was 

a  continued  Avarfare.     He  was  engaged  against  the 

ttor  .ury.  ^uitcd  forccs  of  the  Papal  world,  and  he  stood  the 
shock  of  them  bravely,  both  with  courage  and  success.  He 
was  a  man  certainly  of  high  endowments  of  mhid,  and  great 
virtues.     He  had  a  vast  understanding,  which  raised  him  to  a 

*  Sermons  on  Doctrines,  etc.,  wliich  Christians  have  made  the  Subject  of  Con- 
troversy.    By  Aaron  Bancroft,  D   D.     Worcester,  1822.     Serm.  XI. 


B  A  YL  E—  TENNIS  0 N.  51 

pitch  of  learning  unknown  to  the  age  in  wliieh  he  hved.  ITia 
knowledge  in  Scripture  was  admirahle,  his  elocution  manly, 
and  his  way  of  reasoning,  with  all  the  subtil ity  that  the  plain 
truths  he  delivered  would  bear.  Ilis  thoughts  were  bent 
always  on  great  designs,  and  he  had  a  resolution  to  go  through 
with  them,  and  the  assurance  of  his  mind  was  not  to  be  shaken, 
or  surprised.  His  life  was  holy,  and,  when  he  had  leisure  for 
retirement,  severe.  His  virtues  were  active  chiefly,  and  social, 
and  not  those  lazy,  sullen  ones  of  the  cloister.  He  had  no  am- 
bition, but  in  the  service  of  God  ;  for  other  things,  neither  his 
enjoyments  nor  wishes  ever  went  higher  than  the  bare  conve- 
niences of  living.  If,  among  this  crowd  of  virtues,  a  failing 
crept  in,  we  must  remember  that  an  apostle  himself  had  not 
been  irreproachable ;  if  in  the  body  of  his  doctrine,  a  flaw  is  to 
be  seen,  yet  the  greatest  lights  of  the  Church,  and  in  the  purest 
times  of  it,  were,  we  know,  not  exact  in  all  their  opinions. 
Upon  the  whole,  we  have  certainly  great  reason  to  break  out 
in  the  language  of  the  prophet,  and  say,  '  How  beautiful  on 
the  mountains  are  the  feet  of  him  who  bringeth  gladtidingg.'"-^ 

Bayle,  prince  of  skeptics,  has  devoted  an  article  of  his  great 
Dictionary,  to  a  defence  of  Luther's  character  from 
the  falsehoods  which  have  been  published  concern- 
ing him.  His  slanderers,  Bayle  says,  have  had  no  regard  to 
probability  or  the  rules  of  their  own  art.  "  His  greatest 
enemies  cannot  deny  but  that  be  had  eminent  qualities,  and 
history  aftbrds  nothing  more  surprising  than  what  he  has 
done :  for  a  simple  monk  to  be  al)le  to  give  Popery  so  rude  a 
shock,  that  there  needed  but  such  another  entirely  to  over- 
throw the  Romish  Church,  is  what  we  cannot  sufl[iciently 
admire."  f 

Archbishop   Tennison,  of    the   Church   of    England,  sayo : 
"  Luther  was  indeed  a  man  of  warm  temper,  and 
uncourtly  language ;  but  (besides  that  he  had  his      '^«""'«»"- 

*  Atterbury's  vindication  of  Luther,  (1687.)  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  his  Own 
Times,  regards  this  Tindication  as  one  of  the  most  able  defences  of  the  Protestant 
religion.  Atterbury,  on  his  trial,  appealed  to  this  book  to  exculpate  himself  from 
the  charge  of  a  secret  leaning  to  Popery. 

f  Bayle's  Histor.  and  Critic.  Dictionary,  translated  by  Maizeaux,  London, 
1736,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  934-937. 


52  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

education    among  those  who   so  vehemently  reviled  him)  it 
may  be  considered,  whether  in  passing  through  so  very  rough 
a  sea,  it  was  not  next  to  impossible  for  him  not  to  beat  the 
insulting  waves  till  they  foamed  again.    Erasmus  tells  us  '  that 
he  perceived,  the  better  any  man  was,  the  more  he  relished 
the  writings   of  Luther;'  *   that   his  very  enemies   allowed 
him  to  be  a  man  of  good  life  ;  that  he  seemed  to  him  to  have 
in  his  breast  certain  eminent  Evangelical  sparks ;  that  it  was 
plain  that  some  condemned  things  in  Luther's  writings  which 
in  Augustine  and  Bernard  passed  for  pious  and  orthodox."  f 
Bishop  Kidder,  in  the  same  interesting  collection  from  which 
we  have  just  quoted,  alludes  to  the  "  Confessions 
Kidder.         ^^  Adversaries,"  which  Bellarmine  has  presented 
as  the  thirteenth  mark  of  the  Church.     This  weapon  he  turns 
against  the  great  Romish  author:  ''As  for  Martin  Luther, 
whatever  the  Eomanists  say  of  him  now,  yet  certain  it  is  that 
Erasmus,  who  I  hope  will  pass  with  Cardinal  Bellarmine  for  a 
Catholic,  who  lived  in  his  time,  gives  a  better  account  of  him. 
In  his  letter  to  the  Cardinal  of  York,  speaking  of  Luther,  he 
says  :  X    '  His  life  is  approved  by  all  men,  and  this  is  no  slight 
ground  of  prejudice  in  his  favor,  that  such  was  the  integrity 
of  his  morals,  that  his  enemies  could  find  nothing  to  reproach 
him  with.'    Again,  in  a  letter  to  :Nrelanchthon :  §    'All  men 
among  us  approve  the  life  of  Luther.'  "  1 

Even  Bossuet,  the  eagle  of  Meaux,  is  obliged,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  ferocious  assault  on  Protestantism,  to 
^'''"'''  concede  something  in  regard  to  Luther's  gifts: 
'^  In  tlie  time  of  Luther,  the  most  violent  rupture,  and  greatest 
apostasy  occurred,  which  had  perhaps  ever  been  seen  in  Chris- 
tendom. The  two  parties,  who  have  called  themselves  reformed, 
have  alike  recognized  him  as  the  author  of  this  new  Reforma- 
tion. It  is  not  alone  his  followers,  the  Lutherans,  who  have 
lavished  upon  him  the  highest  praises.  Calvin  frequently  ad- 
mires his  virtues,  his  magnanimity,  his  constancy,  the  incom- 

♦  Erasm.  Epist.  ad  Albert.  Episc,  etc.,  pp.  584,  585. 

f  Bellarmine's  Notes   of  the  Church   Examined   and  Refuted,    London,    1840, 
p.  -251. 

I  Erasm.  Ep.,  lib.  xi.,  Ep.  1. 

^  Ep  ,  lib.  vii.,  Ep,  43.  ||  Bellarmine's  Notes  Examined,  etc.,  p    312 


BO  WEE.  53 

parable  industry  which  he  displayed  against  the  Pope.  He  is 
the  trumpet,  or  rather,  he  is  the  thunder  —  he  is  the  lightning 
which  has  roused  the  world  from  its  lethargy :  it  was  not  so 
much  Luther  that  spoke  as  God  whose  lightnings  burst  from 
his  lips.  And  it  is  true  he  had  a  strength  of  genius,  a  vehe- 
mence in  his  discourses,  a  living  and  impetuous  eloquence 
which  entranced  and  ravished  the  people."  * 

The  judgment  of  Bower  in  regard  to  Luther,  is,  on  the 
whole,  the  most  discriminating  which  had  ap- 
peared in  the  English  language  up  to  his  time. 
*'  In  the  personal  character  of  Luther,  we  discern  many  quali- 
ties calculated  to  enable  him  to  discharge  with  success  the 
important  duty  to  which  he  was  called.  A  constitutional 
ardor  for  devotion,  a  boundless  thirst  of  knowledge,  and  a 
fearless  zeal  in  communicating  it,  were  prominent  character- 
istics of  this  extraordinary  man.  An  unwearied  perseverance 
in  theological  research,  led  him  to  detect  errors,  and  to  relin- 
quish step  by  step,  many  of  his  early  opinions.  In  all  situ- 
ations Luther  is  the  same,  pursuing  indefatigably  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  word  of  God,  and  never  scrupling  to  avow  his 
past  mistakes,  whenever  the  confession  could  facilitate  the 
inquiries  or  confirm  the  faith  of  others.  It  was  in  vain  that 
the  head  of  the  Church,  and  the  chief  of  the  German  Empire 
combined  to  threaten  and  proscribe  him  —  he  braved  with 
equal  courage  the  very  lance  of  either  poAver,  and  continued 
to  denounce,  with  an  unsparing  hand,  the  prevalence  of  cor- 
ruption. In  no  single  instance  did  he  seek  to  turn  to  his 
personal  advantage,  his  distinctions  and  the  influence  attached 
to  them.  How  few  individuals  would  have  possessed  Luther's 
power  without  making  it  subservient  to  the  acquisition  of 
rank  or  honors?  All  these  were  disdained  by  him,  and  his 
mind  remained  wholly  occupied  with  the  diffusion  of  religious 
truth.  Even  literary  fame  had  no  attractions  for  him.  The 
improvement  of  the  condition  of  his  fellow-creatures  was  the 
object,  which  with  him  superseded  every  other  consideration. 
No  temptation  of  ambition  could  remove  him,  in  his  days  of 

*  (Euvres  de  Bossuet,  (Histoire  des  Variations,)  Paris,  Didot  Fr^res,  IS-il,  Tol. 
iv.,  p.  9. 


54  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

celebrity,  from  his  favorite  University  of  Wittenberg.  While 
his  doctrine  spread  far  and  wide,  and  wealthy  cities  would 
have  been  proud  to  receive  him,  Luther  clung  to  the  spot 
where  he  discharged  the  duty  of  a  teacher,  and  to  the  asso- 
ciates whom  he  had  known  in  his  season  of  humility.  The 
freedom  of  his  language  in  treating  of  the  conduct  of  the 
great,  arose  partly  from  his  constitutional  ardor,  and  partly 
from  an  habitual  impression  of  the  all-powerful  claims  of 
truth.  The  lofty  attitude,  so  often  assumed  by  him,  is  not 
therefore  to  be  attributed  to  pride  or  vanity.  In  ti-eating  of 
the  Scriptures,  he  considered  himself  as  acting  in  the  presence 
of  God,  whose  majesty  and  glory  w^ere  so  infinitely  exalted 
above  all  created  beings,  as  to  reduce  to  one  and  the  same 
level  the  artificial  distinctions  of  w^orldly  institutions.  Under 
this  conviction,  the  prince  or  king,  who  ventured  to  oppose 
what  Luther  considered  the  word  of  God,  seemed  to  him  no 
more  exempted  from  severe  epithets  than  the  humblest  of  his 
adversaries.  However  we  may  censure  the  length  to  which 
his  freedom  was  carried,  the  boldness  of  his  conduct  was,  on 
the  whole,  productive  of  much  good.  An  independent  and 
manly  tone  in  regard  not  only  to  religion,  but  to  civil  liberty,  lit- 
erature, the  arts  and  sciences,  w^as  created  and  disseminated  by 
his  example.  Few  writers  discover  greater  knowledge  of  the 
world,  or  a  happier  talent  in  analyzing  and  illustrating  the 
shades  of  character.  It  is  equally  remarkable  that  no  man  could 
display  more  forcibly  the  tranquil  consolations  of  religion.  Few 
men  entered  with  more  ardor  into  the  innocent  pleasures  of 
society.  His  frankness  of  disposition  was  apparent  at  the  first 
interview,  and  his  communicative  turn,  joined  to  the  richness 
of  his  stores,  rendered  his  conversation  remarkably  interest- 
ing. In  treating  of  humorous  subjects,  he  discovered  as  much 
vivacity  and  playfulness  as  if  he  had  been  a  man  unaccustomed 
to  serious  research."  His  conjugal  and  paternal  afiection,  his 
love  of  music,  his  power  of  throwing  a  charm  around  the 
topics  of  religion,  his  fearlessness  in  danger,  and  his  extraor- 
dinary powers  as  a  preacher,  are  dwelt  upon  by  Bower,  whose 
sketch  is  one  well  worthy  of  being  read."^' 

*  Tlie  Life  of  Luther,  etc.,  bv  Alexander  Bower.     Philadelphia.     1824 


BREWSTER  — BUD  DEUS.  55 

In  a  similar  strain  proceeds  the  language  of  the  Rev.  James 
Brewster,  who,  in  speaking  of  Luther's  character  as  a  musician 
and  composer,  mentions  that  "  the  great  Handel  acknowledged 
that  he  had  derived  singular  advantage  from  studying  the 
compositions  of  the  great  Saxon  Reformer."  *  Buddeus  gives 
us  a  particular  account  of  the  principal  writings  R,.e,v.ter 
of  Luther,  and  points  out  his  great  services  in  all  Bu.uieus. 
the  departments  of  theology  and  practical  Christianity.  Among 
the  foremost  of  these,  he  places  his  revival  of  catechising  and 
his  invaluable  contributions  to  it ;  he  points  out  how  much  he 
did  for  moral  theology,  and  the  great  obligations  under  which 
he  laid  the  Church,  by  his  translation  of  the  Bible.  We  will 
give  his  estimate  of  Luther  in  the  department  of  Polemic  The- 
ology :  "  Here,  beyond  controversy,  the  highest  praise  is  due 
to  our  sainted  Luther,  who  first,  when  all  was  lost,  all  in  des- 
pair, lifted  up  the  standard  of  better  hopes.  iN'or  could  one 
better  fitted  for  sustaining  the  cause  of  truth  have  been  found. 
Acuteness  of  judgment  and  fertility  of  thought  were  both 
his ;  these  gave  to  him  arguments  of  might,  overwhelming 
eloquence  which  swept  everything  before  it  like  a  torrent.  His 
was  an  intrepid  soul,  which  neither  power,  danger  nor  threats 
could  turn  from  the  rio:ht.  The  truth  indeed  fou2:ht  for  him  ; 
but  no  less  did  he  fight  for  the  truth,  so  that  no  mortal  could 
have  done  more  to  defend  it,  and  place  it  beyond  the  reach  of 
its  foes.  You  are  forced  everywhere  to  confess  the  accurate 
disputer,  the  exquisite  Theologian,  the  earnest  defender  of  the 
truth.  His  own  writings  leave  no  room  for  doubt  that  he 
argued  from  profound  conviction  of  the  truth,  and  that  he  v/as 
wholly  free  from  the  crime  of  men  who  employ  a  line  of  de- 
fence, not  because  they  regard  it  as  true,  but  because  it  suits 
their  purpose.  The  abundance  of  arguments  well  adapted  to 
their  purpose,  the  copiousness  and  power  of  his  language,  alike 
arrest  the  attention.  He  so  demonstrates  the  truth,  as  to  leave 
the  errorist  no  subterfuge ;  such  is  the  firmness  of  his  grasp, 
that  he  seizes  the  assent  of  the  reader,  hurries  him,  forces  him 
to  his  conclusion.  He  asks  no  favors,  makes  no  eifort  to  pro- 
pitiate ;  he  compels  by  the  weight  of  proof,  triumphs  by  dem- 

*  Edinburgh  EucyclopeJia,  vol.  xii.,  Philadelpbia,  1832,  art.  Luther. 


66  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

onstration  of  tlie  truth,  and  forces  the  unwilling  to  do  homage 
to  sound  doctrine.  When  we  look  at  the  eifrontery  and  ob- 
stinacy of  his  opponents,  and  their  cruel  purposes,  we  feel  that 
in  comparison  with  theirs,  the  severest  language  of  Luther 
appears  mild."  * 

Calvin,  who  w\as  far  from  being  a  hearty  praiser,  yet  speaks 
thus  of  him,  in  a  letter  to  Bullinger  :  "  Recall  these 
Calvin.        things  to  your  mind  :  how  great  a  man  Luther  is, 
and  in  what  great  endowments  he  excels,  with  what  fortitude 
of  mind  and  constancy,  with  what  excellent  address,  and  effi- 
cacy of  doctrine  he  has  hitherto  labored  and  watched  to  over- 
throw the  kingdom  of  Antichrist,  and  propagate  the  doctrine 
of  salvation.     I  often  say,  if  he  should  call  me  a  devil,  I  hold 
him  in  such  honor,  that  I  would  acknowledge  him  an  illus- 
trious servant  of  God."t     Again,  Calvin  says  of  him:  ''We 
sincerely  testify  that  we  regard  him  as  a  noble  apostle  of  Christ, 
by  whose  labor  and  ministry  the  purity  of  the  Gospel  has  been 
restored  in  our  times.":]:     Again:  "If  any  one  will  carefully 
consider  what  was  the  state  of  things  at  the  period   when 
Luther  arose,  he  will  see  that  he  had  to  contend  with  almost 
all  the  difficulties  wdiich  were  encountered  by  the  Apostles. 
In  one  respect,  indeed,  his  condition  was  worse  and  harder 
than  theirs.     There  was  no  kingdom,  no  principality,  against 
which  they  had  to  declare  war  ;  whereas  Luther  could  not  go 
forth,  except  by  the  ruin  and  destruction  of  that  empire  which 
was  not  only  the  most  powerful  of  all,  but  regarded  all  the  rest 
as  obnoxious  to  itself."   We  cannot  forbear  quoting  a  few  more 
sentences  from  Carlyle.     "  As  a  participant  and  dispenser  of 
divine  influences,  he  show^s  himself  among  human 
^"'^^"'        affairs  a  true  connecting  medium  and  visible  Mes- 
senger between  Heaven  and  Earth  ;  perhaps  the  most  inspired 
of  all  teachers  since  the  first  apostles  of  his  faith  ;  and  thus 
not   a  poet  only,  but  a  Prophet   and  God -ordained   Priest, 

*  Buddei  Isagoge  Historico-theologica,  Lipsi8e,17oO,  pp   1031,  1040. 

f  J.  Calvini  Epistolie  et  Responsge,  Genev.,  1576,  fol.,  p.  383.  Life  of  John 
Calvin,  by  Beza,  translated  by  Sib.^oii,  Philuda.,  183(;,  p.  80. 

+  Life  and  Times  of  Jolin  Calvin,  translated  from  the  German  of  Paul  Henry, 
D.  D.,  by  II.  Stebbing,  D.  D.,  New  York,  1851,  p.  18. 


THE   COLERIDGES.  57 

which  is  the  highest  form  of  that  dignity,  and  of  all  dignity."  * 
"  I  will  call  this  Luther  a  true  Great  Man ;  great  in  intellect, 
in  courage,  affection,  and  integrity ;  one  of  our  most  lovahle 
and  precious  men.  Great,  not  as  a  hewn  ohelisk ;  but  as  an 
Alpine  mountain,  —  so  simple,  honest,  spontaneous,  not  setting 
up  to  be  great  at  all ;  there  for  quite  another  purpose  than  being 
great  1  Ah,  yes,  unsubduable  granite,  piercing  far  and  wide 
into  the  heavens ;  yet  in  the  cleft  of  its  fountains,  green  beau- 
tiful valleys  with  flowers  1  A  right  Spiritual  Hero  and  Pro- 
phet ;  once  more,  a  -true  Son  of  Kature  and  Fact,  for  whom 
these  centuries,  and  many  that  are  to  come  yet,  will  be  thank- 
ful to  Heaven."  t  Martin  Chemnitz,  that  most  precious  man 
of  the  second  generation  of  the  great  divines  of  our  Church, 
like  all  who  spoke  of  Luther,  immediately  after  his  Chemnitz 
own  time,  breathes  the  spirit  of  profound  reverence 
toward  him.  After  the  death  of  Melanchthon,  Chemnitz  was 
indubitably  the  greatest  living  theologian.  ''  What  Quintilian 
said  of  Cicero :  '  Ille  sciat  se  in  Uteris  multum  profecisse,  cui 
Cicero  plurimum  placebit,'  I  apply  to  Luther.  A  man  may  tell 
how  far  he  has  advanced  in  theology,  by  the  degree  to  which 
he  is  pleased  by  Luther's  writings." :J:  Claude,  in  his  famous 
''Defence  of  the  Reformation,"  which  is  still  richly 

p  Claude, 

w^orth  perusal,  has  vmdicated  the  character  oi 
Luther  in  a  very  judicious  manner :  "  We  discover,"  he  says, 
*'  a  great  many  excellent  things  in  him,  an  heroical  courage,  a 
great  love  for  the  truth,  an  ardent  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God, 
a  great  trust  in  His  providence,  extraordinary  learning  in  a 
dark  age,  a  profound  respect  for  the  Holy  Scripture,  an  inde- 
fatigable spirit,  and  a  great  many  other  high  qualities. "§ 

All  who  are  familiar  with  the  writings  of  S.  T.  Coleridge, 
know  how  deep  was  his  reverence  for  Luther.     To 

^  The  Colendges. 

this  his  son,  Henry  ITelson  Coleridge,  makes  numer- 
ous allusions  in  the  defence  of  his  father's  religious  opinions, 

*  Critical  and  Miscellaneous  Essays,  by  Thomas  Cavlyle,  Pbiladelphia,  1850, 
p.  224. 

■\  Heroes  and  Hero-Worsliip,  p.  127. 

%  Locorum  Theolog.  M.  Chemnitti,  Pars  Tertia,  1623,  Witebergae,  p.  41. 

\  A  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  translated  from  the  French  of  Monsieur 
Claude,  etc.,  London,  1815,  vol.  i.,  p.  289. 


58  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

which  forms  part  of  his  Introduction  to  the  "  Biographia  Lite- 
raria.^' — "He  saw,"  says  his  son,  "the  very  mind  of  St.  Paul  in 
the  teaching  of  Luther  on  the  Law  and  Justification  by  Faith.'' 
"  M}'  father's  aii'ectionate  respect  for  Luther  is  enough  to  alien- 
ate him  from  the  High  Anglican  party."  —  "He  thought  the 
mind  of  Luther  more  akin  to  St.  Paul's  than  that  of  any  other 
Christian  teacher."  —  "It  is  an  insult,"  says  Henry  [N'elson 
Coleridge,  speaking  in  his  own  person,  "to  the  apostolic  man's 
(Luther's)  memory,  to  defend  him  from  the  charge  of  Anti- 
nomianism.  He  knocked  down  with  his  little  finger  more 
Antinomianism  than  his  accusers  with  both  hands.  If  his 
doctrine  is  the  jaw-hone  of  an  ass,  he  must  have  been  a  very 
Samson,  for  he  turned  numbers  with  this  instrument  from 
the  evil  of  their  lives ;  and  the  same  instrument,  in  the  hands 
of  mere  pigmies  in  comparison  with  him,  has  wrought  more 
amendment  of  life  among  the  poor,  than  the  most  eloquent 
and  erudite  preachers  of  works  and  rites  have  to  boast,  by 
their  preaching."  Coleridge  is  here  answering  some  of  the 
aspersions  cast  by  High-Church  writers  on  Luther.  Referring 
to  one  of  them,  who  had  called  the  Commentary  on  Galatians 
"  silly,"  he  says,  "  Shakspeare  has  been  called  silly  by  Puri- 
tans, Milton  worse  than  silly  by  Prelatists  and  Papists,  Words- 
worth was  long  called  silly  by  Bonaparteans ;  what  will  not 
the  odium  theologicitm  or  politicum  find  worthless  and  silly  ? 
To  me,  perhaps  from  my  silliness,  his  Commentary  appears  the 
very  Iliad  of  justification  by  faith  alone  ;  all  the  fine  and  strik- 
ing things  that  have  been  said  upon  the  subject,  are  taken 
from  it ;  and  if  the  author  preached  a  novel  doctrine,  or  pre- 
sented a  novel  development  of  Scripture  in  this  work,  as  Mr. 
Kewman  avers,  I  think  he  deserves  great  credit  for  his  origin- 
ality. The  Commentary  contains,  or  rather  is,  a  most  spirited 
siege  of  Babylon,  and  the  friends  of  Rome  like  it  as  well  as  the 
Trench  like  Wellington  and  the  battle  of  Waterloo."  —  "My 
father  called  Luther,  in  parts,  the  most  evangelical  writer  he 
knew,  after  the  apostles  and  apostolic  men."  This  he  said  in 
view  of  his  "  depth  of  insight  into  the  heart  of  man  and  into 
the  ideas  of  the  Bible,  the  fervor  and  reality  of  his  religious 
feelings,  the  manliness  and  tenderness  of  his  spirit,  the  vehe- 


WILLIAM  COXE.  59 

ment  eloquence  with  which  he  assails  the  E-omish  practical 
faUacies  and  abuses."  —  ''It  is  for  these  things  that  staunch 
'  Catholics '  hate ;  for  these  things  that  my  father  loved  and 
honored  Luther's  name."  —  "How  Avould  Christendom  have 
fared  without  a  Luther?  What  would  Rome  have  done  and 
dared  but  for  the  Ocean  of  the  Reformed  that  rounds  her? 
Luther  lives  yet  —  not  so  beneficially  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
as  out  of  it  —  an  antagonist  spirit  to  Rome,  and  a  purifying 
and  preserving  spirit  in  Christendom  at  large."  ^ 

"  Luther  possessed  a  temper  and  acquirements  which  pecu- 
liarly fitted  him  for  the  character  of  a  Reformer. 

•^  ^\  illiam  Coxe. 

Without  the  fastidious  nicety  of  refined  taste  and 
elegance,  he  was  endowed  with  singular  acuteness  and  logical 
dexterity,  possessed  profound  and  varied  erudition ;  and  his 
rude,  though  fervid  eloquence,  intermixed  with  the  coarsest 
wit  and  the  keenest  raillery,  was  of  that  species  which  is  best 
adapted  to  aflect  and  influence  a  popular  assembly.  His  Latin, 
though  it  did  not  rise  to  the  purity  of  Erasmus  and  his  other 
learned  contemporaries,  was  yet  copious,  free,  and  forcible,  and 
he  was  perfectly  master  of  his  native  tongue,  and  wrote  it 
with  such  purity,  that  his  works  are  still  esteemed  as  models 
of  style  by  the  German  critics.  He  was  animated  with  an 
undaunted  spirit,  which  raised  him  above  all  apprehension  of 
danger,  and  possessed  a  perseverance  which  nothing  could 
fatigue.  He  was  at  once  haughty  and  condescending,  jovial, 
afiable,  and  candid  in  public  ;  studious,  sober,  and  self-denying 
in  private;  and  he  was  endowed  with  that  happy  and  intuitive 
sagacity  which  enabled  him  to  suit  his  conduct  and  manners  to 
the  exigency  of  the  moment,  to  lessen  or  avert  danger  by 
timely  fiexibility,  or  to  bear  down  all  obstacles  by  firmness 
and  impetuosity.  His  merciless  invectives  and  contemptuous 
irony,  were  proper  weapons  to  repel  the  virulence  and  scurrility 
of  his  adversaries,  and  even  the  fire  and  arrogance  of  his 
temper,  though  blemishes  in  a  refined  age,  were  far  from 
being  detrimental  in  a  controversy  which  roused  all  the 
passions  of  the  human  breast,  and  required  the  strongest  exer- 

*  Biographia  Literuria,  by  S.  T.  Coleridge,  edited  by  Henry  Nelson  Coleridge, 
New  York,  1848. 


60  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

tions  of  fortitude  and  courage.  Sucli  were  the  principles  and 
conduct  of  this  extraordinary  man,  when  the  enormous  abuses 
arising  from  the  sale  of  indulgences  attracted  his  notice,  and 
involved  him  in  that  memorable  controversy  with  the  Church 
of  Rome,  for  which  he  seems  to  have  been  trained  and  adapted 
by  his  temper,  studies,  occupation,  and  habits  of  life."  This  is 
the  language  of  William  Coxe,  in  his  History  of  the  House  of 
Austria."^ 

Dr.  Cox,  (of  London,)  after  characterizing  the  Reformation, 
says :  "  Amono;st  the  instruments  of  this  remark- 

Cox.  ^  ® 

able  change,  the  name  of  Martin  Luther  stands 
pre-eminent.  He  was  not  indeed  the  first  or  the  only  advocate 
of  this  righteous  cause,  but  he  was,  in  many  respects,  the 
greatest.  Luther  possessed  a  vigorous  and  fearless  soul.  He 
was  qualified  to  take  the  lead,  and  to  head  opposition  in  a 
servile  age.  His  mind  was  incessantly  active ;  his  ardor  in 
the  pursuit  of  knowledge  and  in  the  propagation  of  what  he 
knew,  inextinguishable  ;  and  in  the  holy  w^ar  which  he  under- 
took, having  buckled  on  the  armor,  he  w^as  impatient  for  the 
conflict  and  assured  of  the  victory,  ^ever  scarcely  did  the 
hand  of  God  form  a  fitter  instrument  to  do  a  greater  work.^f 
The  writings  of  D'Aubigne,  contain  some  just  and  beauti- 
ful tributes  to  the  character  of  Luther.  "  Luther 
"  '""^"  proved,  through  divine  grace,  the  living  influence 
of  Christianity,  as  no  preceding  Doctor,  perhaps,  had  ever  felt 
it  before.  The  Reformation  sprang  living  from  his  own  heart, 
where  God  himself  had  placed  it."  :j:  "Some  advised  the 
Evangelical  princes  to  meet  Charles,  sword  in  hand.  But  this 
was  mere  worldly  counsel,  and  the  great  Reformer  Luther, 
whom  so  many  are  pleased  to  represent  as  a  man  of  violent 
temper,  succeeded  in  silencing  these  rash  counsellors."  §     "If 

*  Hist,  of  House  of  Austria,  frgm  the  Foundation  of  the  Monarchy  by  Kudolph 
of  Hapsburg,  to  the  Death  of  Leopold  the  Secund,  1218  to  1792,  od  ed.,  in  3  vols., 
London,  Bohn,  1847,  vol.  i.,  p.  C83. 

■j-The  Life  of  Philip  Melanchthon,  comprising  an  Account  of  the  most  Import- 
ant Transactions  of  the  Reformation,  by  F.  A.  Cox,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  1st  American  from 
2d  London  ed.,  Boston,  ISOo.     0  for  a  Life  of  Melanchthon  worthy  of  its  theme  ! 

:j;  D'Aubign^'s  Voice  of  the  Church. 

g  Do.  Confession  of  the  Name  of  Christ. 


D'lSRAELT.  61 

m  the  history  of  the  world  there  l)e  an  individual  we  love 
more  than  another,  it  is  he.  Calvin  we  venerate  more,  hut 
Luther  we  love  more.  Besides,  Lutheranism  is  of  itself  dear 
and  precious  in  our  eyes,  and  with  reason.  In  Reform  there 
are  principles  of  which  we  should  he  afraid,  were  it  not  for  the 
counterhalance  of  Lutheranism.  .  .  .  Luther  and  Lutheranism  do 
not  possess,  even  in  Germany,  even  in  Wittenherg,  friends  and 
admirers  more  ardent  than  we."  '- 

Even  the  Article  of  the  "  Diction naire  Ilistorique,"  intensely 
E-omish  as  it  is,  confesses  the  lihellous  character  of  i)icti<  i.iMirc 
many  of  the  charges  which  were,  for  a  long  time,  ^'"'*"'""^"''- 
current  among  Papists,  in  reference  to  Luther.  Especially  does  it 
mention  that  favorite  one,  that  the  Dispute  about  Indulgences 
arose  from  the  jealousy  of  the  Augustinians  and  Dominicanp, 
and  confesses  that  it  is  wholly  without  foundation.  It  goes 
so  far  as  to  concede  that  the  old  story  of  Luther's  being  begot- 
ten of  an  Incubus,  is  not  probable.  It  concedes  to  him  "-a 
powerful  imagination,  resting  on  intellect  and  nurtured  by 
stud}^  which  made  him  eloquent  by  nature,  and  insured  him 
the  concurrence  of  all  who  heard  the  thunders  of  his  declama- 
tion." f 

D'Israeli  speaks  with  considerable  severity  of  Luther's  vio- 
lence, but  he  has  the  candor  to  compare  with  it 
some  products  of  the  spirit  to  which  he  opposed 
himself.  "  Martin  Luther  was  not  destitute  of  genius,  of  learn- 
ing, or  of  eloquence ;  but  his  violence  disfigured  his  works 
with  invectives  and  singularities  of  abuse.  It  was  fortunate 
for  the  cause  of  the  Eeformation,  that  the  violence  of  Luther 
was  softened,  in  a  considerable  degree  at  times,  by  the  meek 
Melanchthon :  he  often  poured  honey  on  the  sting  inflicted  by 
the  angry  bee.  Luther  was  no  respecter  of  kings  —  he  ad- 
dresses Henry  YIII.  in  the  following  style :  '  It  is  hard  to  say, 
if  folly  can  be  more  foolish,  or  stupidity  more  stupid,  than  is 
the  head  of  Henry.     He  has  not  attacked  me  with  the  heart 

*  D'Aubigne's  Luther  and  Calvin;  or,  the  True  Spirit  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
All  three  of  these  tracts  are  in  "D'Aubigne  and  his  Writings,"  with  a  Sketch,  etc., 
by  Dr.  Baird,  New  York,  1840. 

t  Nouv.  Diction.  Historique,  Caen,  1783,  torn,  v  ,  p.  382 


62  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of  a  king,  but  with  the  impudence  of  a  knave.  This  rotten 
worm  of  the  earth  having  blasphemed  the  majesty  of  my 
king,  I  have  a  just  right  to  bespatter  his  English  majesty  with 
his  own  dirt.  .  .  .  This  Henry  has  lied.'  He  was  repaid  with 
capital  and  interest  by  an  anonymous  reply,  said  to  have  been 
written  by  Sir  Thomas  More,  who  concludes  by  leaving  Luther, 
in  language  not  necessary  to  translate,  '  cum  suis  furiis  et 
furoribus,  cum  suis  merdis  et  stercoribus  cacanteni  cacatum- 
que.'  Such  were  the  vigorous  elegancies  of  a  controversy  on 
the  'Seven  Sacraments.'  Long  after,  the  Court  of  Eome  had 
not  lost  the  taste  of  these  '  bitter  herbs ; '  for  in  the  bull  of  the 
canonization  of  Ignatius  Loyola,  in  August,  1623,  Luther  is 
called  monstnim  teferrbnum,  et  detestabilis pestisJ' — "Calvin  was 
less  tolerable.,  for  he  had  no  Melanchthon  !  His  adversaries  are 
never  others  than  knaves,  lunatics,  drunkards,  and  assassins  ! 
Sometimes  they  are  characterized  by  the  familiar  appellatives 
of  bulls,  asses,  cats,  and  hogs  I  By  him  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
are  alike  hated.  Yet,  after  having  given  vent  to  this  virulent 
humor,  he  frequently  boasts  of  his  mildness.  When  he  reads 
over  his  writings,  he  tells  us  that  he  is  astonished  at  his  for- 
bearance ;  but  this,  he  adds,  is  the  duty  of  every  Christian  1 
At  the  same  time  he  generally  finishes  a  period  with — 'Do 
you  hear,  you  dog ?    Do  you  hear,  madman ? '" * 

"Amidst  all  that  Luther  has  written,"  says  Doederlein,  "  T 
know  nothing  more  precious  than  his  sermons  and 
his  letters.  From  both  of  these  we  can  at  least 
learn  to  know  the  man  in  his  entire  greatness,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  his  genuine  character,  which  superstition  and  malice, 
and  the  partizan  licentiousness  both  of  friends  and  foes  has 
disfigured ;  from  both  beams  forth  the  most  open  honesty,  the 
firmness  of  a  courage  which  never  quailed,  fearlessness  of 
judgment,  and  that  spirit  which  knew  so  perfectly  its  aim, 
which  preserved  its  serenity  amid  all  calamities,  and  changes 
allotted  by  Providence,  and  knew  how  to  use  to  good  purpose, 
sport  and  earnest.  His  letters  especially  bear  the  impress  of 
the  most  artless  simplicity,  and  of  the  most  naive  vivacity, 
and  apart  from  their  contributions  to  history,  and  the  attract- 

*  Curiosities  of  Literature,  by  J.  D'Israeli,  London,  Moxon,  1841,  p.  82. 


CYCLOPAEDIA    OF   BRITISH   SOCIETY.  63 

iveness  of  their  contents,  are  entertaining,  rich  in  instruction, 
and  worthy  of  descending  to  posterity,  were  there  no  other 
reason,  to  show  that  immortal  man  speaking,  especially  with 
his  friends.''*  Dupin  concedes  that  Luther's  errors,  as  he 
styles  them,  obliged  the  Romanists  to  study  The- 
ology upon  right  principles  ;  and  confesses  that  his  "'""' 
version  of  the  Bible  was  ''elegante"  —  even  while  he  brings 
the  charge  that  it  was  "  pen  litterale  "  and  "pen  exacte."t 

Speaking  of  Luther's  reply  to  Henry  VIIL,  the  author  of 
the  article  in  the  "  Cyclopaedia  of  the  Society  for  the  Diffu- 
sion of  Useful  Knowledge"  says:  "It  must  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  the  coarse  vituperations  which  shock  the  cyciupj^cua  of 
reader  in  Luther's  controversial  works,  were  not  British  s.ciety. 
peculiar  to  him,  being  commonly  used  by  scholars  and  divines 
of  the  middle  ages  in  their  disputations.  The  invectives  of 
Valla,  Filelfo,Poggio,  and  other  distinguished  scholars,  against 
each  other,  are  notorious,  and  this  bad  taste  continued  in  prac- 
tice long  after  Luther,  down  to  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
traces  of  it  are  found  in  writers  of  the  eighteenth,  even  in 
some  of  the  works  of  the  polished  and  courtly  Voltaire."  The 
writer  might  have  added  '  down  to  the  nineteenth,'  for  who 
cannot  recall  specimens  of  theological  warfare  in  our  own  day, 
vastly  more  offensive  to  all  right  feeling,  than  anything  writ- 
ten by  Luther.  The  same  writer  goes  on  to  say :  "  Luther 
ranks  high  among  German  writers  for  the  vigor  of  his  style, 
and  the  development  which  he  imparted  to  his  vernacular 
language.  Schroeck,  Melanchthon,  and  others  have  written 
biographies  of  Luther,  and  Michelet  has  extracted  a  kind  of 
autobiography  from  his  works.  From  these  passages  the  char- 
acter of  Luther  is  clearly  deduced,  for  there  was  no  calcula- 
tion, reserve,  or  hypocrisy  about  him.  He  was  frank  and 
vehement,  and  often  intemperate.  But  he  was  earnest  in  his 
vehemence ;  he  really  felt  the  importance  of  the  topics  he  was 
discussing  ;  and  whether  he  was  right  or  wrong  in  his  peculiar 

■'^  D.  Job.  Christoph  Doederlein  Auserlesene  Theologiscbe  Bibliothek.  Review 
of  "  Scbutzes  Lutber's  Briefe,"  Erst.  Band,  Leipzig,  1780,  p.  681. 

f  Method  of  Studying  Divinity,  London,  1720,  p  27.  Dissertation  Pr^limi- 
naire,  etc  ,  Paris,  1699,  vol.  i.,  p.  726. 


64  CONSERVATIVE    BE  FOR  MATT  OK. 

opinions,  he  was  a  sincere  and  zealons  believer  in  the  Christian 
Revelation.  Lnther  considered  religion  as  the  most  important 
business  of  man,  and  because  he  considered  it  as  such,  he 
wished  to  ascend  to  its  very  source,  unalloyed  by  human 
authority.  He  contended  for  the  right  of  every  man  to  consult 
the  great  book  of  the  Christian  Law.  The  principles  of  free 
inquiry,  which  he  introduced,  led  to  further  results,  and  grad- 
ually established  that  liberty  of  conscience  which  now  exists 
in  the  Protestant  States  of  Europe.  But  Luther  himself, 
whilst  he  appealed  to  the  Scriptures  against  human  authority, 
did  not  for  a  moment  admit  of  any  doubts  concerning  the 
truth  of  Revelation.  .  .  .  Those  who  judge  of  Luther's  dispn- 
Bition,  merely  from  his  controversial  style  and  manner,  greatly 
mistake  his  character.  He  was  a  warm-hearted  German,  kind 
and  generous ;  he  abused  and  vilified  his  antagonsts  the  mor^ 
in  proportion  as  they  were  powerful,  but  he  could  feel  for  the 
unhappy,  and  he  even  tendered  some  consolation  to  his  bitterest 
enemy,  Tetzel,  when, forsaken  by  his  employers,  and  upbraided 
as  the  cause  of  all  the  mischief,  he  Avas  in  the  agonies  of  death 
and  despair.  Luther  gave  that  impulse  towards  spiritual 
philosophy,  that  thirst  for  information,  that  logical  exercise 
of  the  mind,  which  have  made  the  Germans  the  most  gener- 
ally instructed,  and  the  most  intellectual  people  in  Europe. 
Luther  was  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  education,  as  aux- 
iliary to  religion  and  morality,  and  he  pleaded  unceasingly  for 
the  education  of  the  laboring  classes,  broadly  telling  princes 
and  rulers  how  dangerous,  as  well  as  unjust,  it  was  to  keep 
their  sul)jects  in  ignorance  and  degradation.  lie  was  no  courtly 
flatterer ;  he  spoke  in  favor  of  the  poor,  the  humble  and  the 
oppressed,  and  against  the  high  and  mighty,  even  of  his  own 
party,  who  were  guilty  of  cupidity  and  oppression.  Luther's 
doctrine  was  altoorether  in  favor  of  civil  libertv,  and  in  Ger- 
many  it  tended  to  support  constitutional  rights  against  the 
encroachments  of  the  imperial  power.  Luther's  moral  cour- 
age, his  undaunted  firmness,  his  strong  conviction,  and  the 
great  revolution  which  he  efi:ected  in  society,  place  him  in  the 
first  rank  of  historical  characters.  The  form  of  the  monk  of 
Wittenbero;,  emero^inir  from  the  receding^  Hoom  of  the  middle 

o '  3      3  as 


B  UNSEN.  65 

ages,  appears  towering  above  the  sovereigns  and  warriors, 
statesmen  and  divines  of  the  sixteenth  century,  who  were  his 
contemporaries,  his  antagonists,  or  his  disciples."  * 

"  As  long  as  Luther  lived  he  was  for  peace  ;  and  he  suc- 
ceeded in  maintaining  it  ;  he  regarded  it  as  impious  to  seek  to 
establish  the  cause  of  God  by  force  ;  and,  in  fact,  during  thirty 
years  of  his  life,  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  gained  a 
firmer  footing,  and  were  more  widely  propagated,  by  his  un- 
shaken faith  and  unwearied  endeavor,  than  by  all  the  wars, 
and  treaties,  and  councils  since." f  Luther  "introduced,  not 
into  Germany  only,  but  into  the  world,  a  new  and  most  im- 
portant era,  and  his  name  can  never  be  forgotten,  while 
anything  of  principle  remains  that  is  deserving  of  remem- 
brance.":}: 

Bunsen  contributed  the  article  on  Luther,  to  the  eighth 
edition  of  the  Britannica.  It  opens  with  these 
words :  "  Luther's  life  is  both  the  epos  and  the 
tragedy  of  his  age.  It  is  an  epos  because  its  first  part  pre- 
sents a  hero  and  a  prophet,  who  conquers  apparently  insuper- 
able difiiculties,  and  opens  a  new  world  to  the  human  mind, 
without  any  power  but  that  of  divine  truth,  and  deep  con- 
viction, or  any  authority  but  that  inherent  in  sincerity  and 
undaunted,  unselfish  courage.  But  Luther's  life  is  also  a 
tragedy ;  it  is  tbe  tragedy  of  Germany  as  well  as  of  the  hero, 
her  son ;  who  in  vain  tried  to  rescue  his  country  from  un- 
holy oppression,  and  to  regenerate  her  from  within,  as  a  nation, 
by  means  of  the  Gospel ;  and  who  died  in  unshaken  faith  in 
Christ  and  in  His  kingdom  ;  although  he  lived  to  see  his  be- 
loved fatherland  going  to  destruction,  not  through,  but  in  spite 
of  the  Reformation. 

"  Both  parts  of  Luther's  life  are  of  the  highest  interest.  In 
the  epic  part  of  it  we  see  the  most  arduous  work  of  the  time 
(the  work  for  two  hundred  years  tried  in  vain  by  Councils, 

*  V^ol.  xiii.,  pp   20G,  207,  (London,  1839,  fol.) 

f  Encycl.  Americ,  vol.  viii.,  p.  153,  Philadelphia,  1848.  The  article  "Refor- 
mation "  in  this  work  is  one  of  the  best  in  it.  It  is  the  article  "  Luther,"  how- 
ever, from  which  we  quote. 

J  Rees'  Cyclop.,  American  edition,  Philadelphia,  vol.  xxii.,  art.  Luther. 
5 


66  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  by  prophets  and  martyrs,  with  and  without  emperors, 
kings,  and  princes,)  undertaken  by  a  poor  monk  alone,  who 
carried  it  out  under  the  ban  both  of  the  Pope  and  the  Em- 
pire. In  the  second,  we  see  him  surrounded  by  friends  and 
disciples,  always  the  spiritual  head  of  his  nation,  and  the 
revered  adviser  of  princes,  and  preacher  of  the  people  ;  living 
in  the  same  poverty  as  before,  and  leaving  his  descendants  as 
unprovided  for  as  Aristides  left  his  daughter.  So  lived  and 
died  the  greatest  hero  of  Christendom  since  the  Apostles  ;  the 
restorer  of  that  form  of  Christianity  w^hich  now  sustains 
Europe,  and  (with  all  its  defects)  regenerating  and  purifying 
the  whole  human  race  ;  the  founder  of  the  modern  German 
language  and  literature ;  the  first  speaker  and  debater  of  his 
country  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  the  first  w^riter  in  prose  and 
verse  of  his  age." 

The  relations  of  Erasmus  and  Luther  form  an  interesting 
chapter  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation.  With  all  the  cau- 
tion of  Erasmus,  and  the  difterence  of  spirit  and 
principle  in  the  two  men,  he  could  not  help  feeling 
a  profound  though  uneasy  reverence  for  Luther.  In  wanting 
to  Cardinal  Wolsey,  in  1518,  when  Luther's  name  vv^as  just 
rising,  he  says :  "  As  to  Luther,  he  is  altogether  unknown  to 
me,  and  I  have  read  nothing  of  his  except  two  or  three  pages. 
His  life  and  conversation  is  universally  commended ;  and  it  is 
no  small  prejudice  in  his  favor,  that  his  morals  are  unblama- 
ble, and  that  Calumny  itself  can  fasten  no  reproach  on  him. 
If  I  had  really  been  at  leisure  to  peruse  his  writings,  I  am  not 
so  conceited  of  my  own  abilities,  as  to  pass  a  judgment  upon 
the  performances  of  so  considerable  a  divine.  I  w^as  once 
against  Luther  purely  for  fear  lest  he  should  bring  an  odium 
upon  literature,  which  is  too  much  suspected  of  evil  already. 
Germany  hath  produced  some  promising  youths,  who  have 
eloquence  and  learning,  and  of  whom  she  will  one  day,  in  my 
opinion,  have  reason  to  boast,  no  less  than  England  can  now 
boast  of  her  sons."*  In  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  (1510,)  he 
says :  "  All  the  world  is  agreed  amongst  us  in  conmiending  his 
moral  character.     He  hath  given  us  good  advice  on  certain 

*  Quoted  by  Jortin,    "Life  of  Erasmus,"  London,  1728,  4to,  p.  129. 


ERASMUS.  67 

points ;  and  God  grant  that  his  success  may  be  equal  to  the 
liberty  which  he  hath  taken."  ^  In  reply  to  a  letter  fronm 
Luther  himself,  Erasmus  calls  him  his  dearest  brother  in 
Christ,  speaks  of  the  excitement  his  works  had  produced  at 
Lou  vain,  and  that  he  had  advised  the  Divines  of  that  Univer- 
sity to  answer  them  instead  of  railing  against  them.  Though 
he  had  told  them  that  he  had  not  read  those  works,  yet  he 
owns  that  he  had  perused  part  of  his  Commentaries  upon  the 
Psalms,  that  he  liked  them  much,  and  hoped  they  might  be 
very  serviceable.  "  There  is  a  Prior  of  a  Monastery  at  Ant- 
werp, a  true  Christian,  who  loves  you  extremely,  and  was,  as 
he  relates,  formerly  a  disciple  of  yours.  He  is  almost  the  only 
one  that  preacheth  Jesus  Christ,  whilst  others  preach  human 
fables,  and  seek  after  lucre.  The  Lord  Jesus  grant  you,  from 
day  to  day,  an  increase  of  his  Spirit,  for  his  glory  and  for  the 
public  good."t  In  a  letter  to  the  Elector  of  Mentz,  (1519,) 
he  had  the  courage  to  apologize  openly  enough  for  Luther  ; 
declines  taking  sides,  but  lashes  the  monks,  and  plainly  justi- 
fies the  beginnings  of  the  Reformation.  X  In  the  same  year, 
he  wrote  a  letter  to  Frederic  of  Saxony,  highly  favorable  to 
Luther.  §  As  the  storm  advanced,  however,  Erasmus  grew 
more  timid  and  sensitive  to  the  reproaches  w^hich  the  enemies 
of  Luther  directed  against  all  who  showed  any  moderation  or 
candor  in  regard  to  him.  When  the  thunder  of  the  Vatican 
rolled  over  Luther's  head,  Erasmus  thought  all  was  ruined, 
and,  in  a  very  oracular  manner,  told  his  friends  that  all  the 
disaster  came  of  not  following  his  advice,  to  be  mild,  concili- 
ating, and  cautious,  to  be  every  thing,  in  short,  which  all 
men  now  see  would  have  left  the  Church  and  the  world  pre- 
cisely w^here  they  were.  Erasmus  spent  the  rest  of  his  life,  in 
the  miserable  condition  of  every  man  who  is  striving  to  com- 
pound between  his  convictions  and  his  fears,  too  acute  to  miss 
the  truth,  and  too  selfish  to  confess  it.  He  did  not  take  open 
grounds  against  the  Evangelical  doctrines  ;  even  the  apologetic 
letter  he  wrote  the  Pope,  showed  that  he  was  not  very  cordially 

*  Quoted  by  Jortin,  Life  of  Erasmus,  London,  1728,  4to,  p.  15G. 

t  Do.,  p.  166.  X  Do.,  p.  202. 

§  Seckendorf^  Historia  Lutheranismi,  1.  i.,  p.  96. 


68  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

on  the  Romish  side.  He  declined  the  task  of  refuting  Luther, 
for  which  his  second  reason  was :  ''  it  is  a  work  above  my  abil- 
ities," and  the  fourth :  that  he  is  not  willing  to  endure  the 
resentment  it  would  occasion.  "  By  the  little  of  Luther's 
writings  which  I  have  rather  run  over  than  examined,  1 
thought  that  I  could  discern  in  him  natural  talents,  and  a 
genius  very  proper  to  explain  the  holy  Scriptures  according  to 
the  manner  of  the  fathers,  and  to  kindle  those  sparks  of  Evan- 
gelical doctrine,  from  which  common  custom,  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  schools  upon  speculations  more  subtile  than  useful,  had 
departed  too  far.  I  heard  men  of  great  merit,  equally  respect- 
able for  learning  and  piety,  congratulate  themselves  for  having 
been  acquainted  with  his  books.  I  saw  that  the  more  unblam- 
able their  behavior  was,  and  the  more  approaching  to  Evangel- 
ical purity,  the  less  they  were  irritated  against  him.  His 
moral  character  was  recommended  even  by  some  who  could  not 
endure  his  doctrine.  As  to  the  spirit  with  which  he  was  ani- 
mated, and  of  which  God  alone  can  judge  with  certainty,  T 
chose  rather,  as  it  became  me,  to  think  too  favorably  than  too 
hardly  of  it.  And,  to  say  the  plain  truth,  the  Christian  world 
hath  been  long  weary  of  those  teachers,  who  insist  too  rigidly 
upon  trifling  inventions  and  human  constitutions,  and  begins 
to  thirst  after  the  pure  and  living  water  drawn  from  the 
sources  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles.  For  this  undertaking 
Luther  seemed  to  me  fitted  by  nature,  and  inflamed  with  an 
active  zeal  to  prosecute  it.  Thus  it  is  that  I  have  favored 
Luther ;  I  have  favored  the  good  which  I  saw,  or  imagined 
that  I  saw  in  him."  *  In  the  same  tone  is  his  letter  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Mentz,  (1520.)  In  it,  he  shows  his  prevailing 
spirit  of  temporizing,  which  reaped  its  fit  reward  in  the  hatred 
of  the  Romish  and  the  contempt  of  the  Protestant  party. 
"  Let  others  aftect  martyrdom ;  for  my  part,  I  hold  myself 
unworthy  of  that  honor."  "  Luther,"  said  Erasmus  to  the 
Elector  Frederic,  (1520,)  f  "  hath  committed  two  unpardonable 
crimes ;  he  hath  touched  the  Pope  upon  the  crown,  and  the 

■'^Letter  to  Campegius,  1520,  quoted  in  Jortin's  Life,  p.  232. 
f  •'  When  Cliarlea  V.  liad  just  been  made  Emperor,  and  was  at.  Cologne,  the 
Elector  Frederick,  who  was  also  there,  sent  to  Erasmus,  desiring  that  he  would 


ERASMUS.  69 

monks  upon  the  belly."  He  then  added,  in  a  serious  manner, 
that  the  doctrine  of  Luther  was  unexceptionable.  He  solicited 
the  ministers  of  the  Emperor  to  favor  the  cause  of  Luther, 
and  to  persuade  him  not  to  begin  the  exercise  of  his  imperial 
dignity  with  an  act  of  violence.  To  Frederic  he  presented  the 
following  Axioms  for  his  consideration  :  '  That  only  two  Uni- 
versities had  pretended  to  condemn  Luther;'  *  That  Luther 
made  very  reasonable  demands,  by  offering  to  dispute  publicly 
once  more.  That,  being  a  man  void  of  ambition,  he  was  the 
less  to  be  suspected  of  heresy.'  The  Pope's  agents,  finding 
Erasmus  so  obstinately  bent  to  defend  Luther,  endeavored  to 
win  him  over  by  the  offer  of  abbeys,  or  bishoprics :  but  he 
answered  them,*  "Luther  is  a  man  of  too  great  abilities  for 
me  to  encounter ;  and  I  learn  more  from  one  page  of  his,  than 
from  all  the  works  of  Thomas  Aquinas."  The  Lutherans 
acknowledged  their  obligations  to  Erasmus  for  these  favors,  by 
a  picture,  in  which  Luther  and  Hutten  were  represented  car- 
rying the  Ark  of  God,  and  Erasmus,  like  another  David, 
dancing  before  them  with  all  his  might.f 

That  Erasmus  went  thus  far,  is  wonderful ;  that  he  would 
have  gone  much  farther,  if  he  had  simply  acted  out  his  con- 
victions, is  certain.  "But  if  Luther,"  he  says,  (1521,)  "had 
written  everything  in  the  most  unexceptionable  manner,  I 
had  no  inclination  to  die  for  the  sake  of  the  truth.  Every 
man  hath  not  the  courage  requisite  to  make  a  martyr ;  and  I 
am  afraid,  that  if  I  were  put  to  the  trial,  I  should  imitate  St. 
Peter." t     "I  follow  the  decisions  of  the  Pope  and  Emperor 

come  to  his  lodgings.  Erasmus  accordingly  waited  on  him.  It  was  in  Decem- 
ber, and  they  conversed  at  the  fireside.  Erasmus  preferred  using  Latin  instead 
of  Dutch,  and  the  Elector  answered  him,  through  Spalatine.  When  Erasmus  was 
desired  freely  to  give  his  opinion  concerning  Luther,  he  stood  with  lips  com- 
pressed, musing  in  silence  for  a  long  time;  whilst  Frederic,  as  was  his  wont  in 
earnest  discourse,  fixed  his  eyes  upon  him  in  an  intense  gaze.  At  last  he  broke 
the  silence  with  the  words  we  have  quoted.  The  Elector  smiled  when  they  were 
uttered,  and  in  after  time,  not  long  before  his  death,  recalled  them.  Erasmus 
afterwards  begged  Spalatine  to  return  the  manuscript  of  the  axioms,  lest  it  might 
be  used  to  his  hurt."  —  Seckendorf.   Jortin. 

*  Melchior  Adami,  Vita  Lutheri. 

f  Critique  de  I'Apol.  d'Erasme,  quoted  by  Jortin,  p.  242.  Seckendorf  gives 
the  same  facts  in  still  ampler  detail. 

X  Letter  to  Pace,  quoted  in  Jortin,  p.  273. 


70  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

when  they  are  right,  which  is  acting  religiously ;  I  submit  to 
them  when  they  are  wrong,  which  is  acting  prudently,  and  I 
think  that  it  is  lawful  for  good  men  to  behave  themselves  thus, 
when  there  is  no  hope  of  obtaining  any  more."  *  "  There  is  a 
certain  innocent  time-serving  and  pious  craft." f  Lamartine 
says  :  "  Ko  s^reat  man  is  cunning."  This  was  a  truth  to  which 
Erasmus  does  not  seem  to  have  attained.  On  the  train  of  cir- 
cumstances which  led  to  the  controversy  between  Erasmus  and 
Luther,  on  free  will,  it  is  no  place  here  to  dwell.  Erasmus 
wrote  to  prove  the  freedom  of  the  will,  though  his  very  doing 
80,  he  confesses,  was  a  proof  that  his  own  will  was  not  free. 
Through  Luther  he  struck  at  the  Reformation  itself.  "Luther 
replied,  and  had  unquestionably  the  best  of  the  argument."  J 
"  I  count  this,"  says  Yaughan,  speaking  of  Luther's  reply,  "  a 
truly  estimable,  magnificent  and  illustrious  treatise."  "  Luther 
did  not  rejoin  to  Erasmus'  twofold  reply :  he  Avell  knew  that 
Erasmus  was  fighting  for  victory,  not  for  truth,  and  he  had 
better  things  to  do  than  to  write  books  merely  to  repeat  unan- 
swered arguments."  § 

Gelzer,  who  wrote  the  sketches  which  accompany  Konig's  pic- 
tures, says  of  Luther  :  "  If  we  recall,  among  other  great  names 
in  German  history, the  Reformers  Melanchthon  and 
Z  wingle,  the  Saxon  Electors,  Frederick  the  Wise  and 
John  the  Constant,  Gustavus  Adolphus  and  Frederick  the 
Great ;  or  among  intellectual  celebrities,  Klopstock  and  Lessing, 
Ilaman  and  Herder,  Gothe  and  Schiller  ;  or  turn  to  the  great 
religious  reformers  of  the  last  centuries,  Spener,  Franke,  Zinzen- 
dorf,  Bengel,  and  Lavater,  they  all  exhibit  many  features  of  rela- 
tionship with  Luther,  and  in  some  qualities  may  even  surpass 
him,  but  not  one  stands  out  a  Luther.  One  is  deficient  in  the 
poetic  impulse,  or  the  fulness  and  versatility  of  his  nature ; 
another  wants  his  depth  of  religious  feeling,  his  firmness  of 
purpose  and  strength  of  character ;  others  again,  want  his  elo- 
quence or  influence  over  his  contemporaries.     Luther  would 

*  Jortin,  p.  274.        f  Erasmus,  quoted  by  Jortin.  %  F^^es'  Cycl.,  art.  Erasmus 

I  Martin    Luther  on  the  Bondage   of  the    Will,  translated   by  E.  T.  Vaughan, 

London,    1823,  preface,  xlix.      Vaughan  gives  a  sketch   of  Luther's  Life,  and   a 

view  of  his  character,  a  mere  abridgment  of  Dean  Milner'a  continuation  of  hie 

brother's  Church  History. 


LUTHER'S  TOLERATION.  71 

not  have  been  Luther,  without  these  three  leading  features : 
his  strong  faith  ;  his  spiritual  eloquence  ;  and  firmness  of  char- 
acter and  purpose.  He  united  —  and  this  is  the  most  extra- 
ordinary fact  connected  with  him — to  large  endowments  of 
mind  and  heart,  and  the  great  gift  of  imparting  these  intellec- 
tual treasures,  the  invincible  power  of  original  and  creative 
thought,  both  in  resisting  and  influencing  the  outer  world." 

"  The  history  of  the  Reformation,  which  Guericke  presents 
in  his  admirable  compend,  is  in  keepino;  with  his 

^  '  11  (iuericke. 

strong,  consistent  Lutheran  position,  and  though 
it  does  not  contain  any  distinct,  elaborate  analysis  of  Luther's 
character,  presents  a  just  view  of  his  career  and  his  qualities."  * 
The  Twelfth  Lecture  of  Guizot,t  is  devoted  to  the  Reforma- 
tion. In  a  note  at  the  close  of  the  chapter,  the 
remark  of  Robertson  is  quoted,  that  ''  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, Cranmer,  Knox,  the  founders  of  the  Reformed  Church,  in 
their  respective  countries,  inflicted,  as  far  as  they  had  power 
and  opportunity,  the  same  punishments  which  were  denounced 
by  the  Church  of  Rome  upon  such  as  called  in  question  any 
article  of  their  creed."  Upon  this  passage  of  Robertson, 
SmytheJ  remarks,  that  "Luther  might  have  been  favor- 
ably distinguished  from  Calvin  and  others.  There  Luther's  Tour- 
are  passages  in  his  writings,  with  regard  to  the  "t'O"- 
interference  of  the  magistrate  in  religious  concerns,  that  do 
him  honor  ;  but  he  was  favorably  situated,  and  lived  not  to 
see  the  temporal  sword  at  his  command.  He  was  never  tried." 
The  closing  words  of  Smythe  are  in  defiance  of  the  facts  in 
the  case.  More  than  any  private  man  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, Luther  had  the  temporal  sword  at  his  command.  He 
was  tried.  He  was  a  shield  to  his  enemies,  both  in  person  and 
doctrine,  when  the  penalties  of  the  law  were  hanging  over 
them.  Single-handed  he  protested  against  resort  to  violence. 
He  averted  war  when  the  great  Protestant  princes  were  eager 

*  Handbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte  von  H.  E.  F.  Guericke,  9te  Aufl.,  Leipzig, 
18G7,  vol.  iii.,  1-778. 

f  General  History  of  Civilization  in  Europe,  from  the  Fall  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire to  the  French  Revolution,  3d  American  from  the  2d  English  edition,  with 
occasional  notes  by  C.  S.  Henry,  D.  D.,  New  York,  1846,  p.  248-268. 

X  Lectures  on  Modern  History,  Am.  ed.,  p,  262. 


72  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

for  it.  He  had  a  great,  loving  heart,  as  fall  of  affection  and 
forbearance  for  man,  even  when  straying,  as  it  was  full  of 
hatred  to  error  in  all  its  forms.  Bancroft  makes  a  more  correct 
statement  of  Luther's  true  principles  in  regard  to  persecution:* 
"Luther  was  more  dogmatical  than  his  opponents;  though  the 
deep  philosophy  with  which  his  mind  was  imbued,  repelled  the 
use  of  violence  to  eifect  conversion  in  religion.  He  was  wont 
to  protest  against  propagating  reform  by  persecution  and  mas- 
sacres ;  and  with  wise  moderation,  an  admirable 
knowledge  of  human  nature,  a  familiar  and  almost 
ludicrous  quaint ness  of  expression,  he  would  deduce  from  his 
great  principle  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  the  sublime  doc- 
trine of  freedom  of  conscience."  To  this  is  added  the  note: 
"  jSTollem  vi  et  csede  pro  evangelia  certari,"  (I  could  not  ^vish 
any  to  contend  for  the  Gospel  by  violence  and  slaughter.)  Lu- 
ther's Seven  Sermons — delivered  in  March,  1522.  "  Predigen 
will  ichs,  sagen  Avill  ichs,  schreiben  will  ichs,  aber  zwingen, 
dringen  mit  GcAvalt  will  ichs  Is'iemand  ;  denn  der  Glaube  will 
ich  uno^enoethi2:t  und  ohne  Zwana;  ano;enommen  werden."  (I 
will  preach,  I  will  talk  in  private,  I  will  write,  but  I  will  force, 
I  will  coerce  no  man :  for  I  will  have  the  faith  accepted,  without 
constraint  and  without  force.)  We  have  a  testimony  to  the 
same  eifect,  in  the  History  of  Germany, f  by  Kohlkausch  : 
"  Shortly  previous  to  the  commencement  of  the  sanguinary  war 
of  religion,  Luther,  the  author  of  the  grand  struggle,  breathed 
his  last.  He  had  used  all  the  weight  of  his  power  and  influence 
in  order  to  dissuade  his  party  from  mixing  external  force  with 
that  which  ought  only  to  have  its  seat  within  the 
calm  profundity  of  the  soul ;  and,  indeed,  as  long  as 
he  lived,  this  energetic  Reformer  was  the  warm  advocate  for  the 
maintenance  of  peace.  He  repeatedly  reminded  the  princes  that 
his  doctrine  was  foreign  to  their  warlike  weapons,  and  he  beheld 
with  pain  and  distress,  in  the  latter  years  of  his  life,  the  grow- 
ing temporal  direction  given  to  the  Holy  Cause,  and  the  in- 
creasing hostility  of  parties,  whence  he  augured  nothing  good." 
In  that  immortal  w^ork  of  John  Gerhard  (theologorum  prin- 
ceps,  tertius  a  Luthero  et  Chemnitio,  orbis  Evangelic!  Atlan- 

*  Hist.  United  States,  i.  274.  f  Lond.,  1844,  p.  402. 


GERHARD— HAGENB  ACE.  73 

tie),  the  *  Confessio  Catholica/  in  which  the  concessions  of 
Romish  writers  are  employed  in  defence  of  the  truth,*  he 
answers  in  full  all  the  calumnies  directed  against  the  life,  and 
the  attacks  on  the  doctrines  of  Luther.  He  shows 
that  Luther  was  actuated  by  no  blind  fury  against 
the  Church  of  Rome,  but  distinguished  in  it  the  precious  from 
the  vile,  and  that  he  was  an  instrument  of  God  endowed  with 
extraordinary  qualities  for  an  extraordinary  work.  In  show- 
ing this,  he  cites  at  large  the  opinions  of  Mellerstadt,  Staupitz, 
the  Emperor  Maximilian,  Yon  Hutten,  Erasmus,  Frederick, 
Elector  of  Saxony,  Langius,  Fisher  f  (Bishop  of  Rochester  and 
Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Cambridge),  who  afterwards 
wrote  against  Luther,  Mosellanus,  Cellarius,  Ulner,  Podusca, 
Phsenicius,  Schirner,  Rosdialovinus,  Margaret,  Archduchess 
of  Austria,  Emser,  Kigelin,  Masius,  and  Severus.  %  These 
persons  were  all  in  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  time  that  these 
favorable  testimonies  were  given.  Portion  by  portion  is  taken 
up  by  Gerhard,  and  disposed  of  with  most  eminent  judgment, 
sustained  by  incredible  learning. 

"It  may  be  said,"  is  the  remark  of  Hagenbach,  "  that  Mar- 
tin Luther  became  emphatically  the  reformer  of  the 
German  Church,  and  thus  the  reformer  of  a  great  •''"^°  '•''^  • 
part  of  the  Universal  Church,  by  his  eminent  personal  character 
and  heroic  career,  by  the  publication  of  his  theses,  by  sermons 
and  expositions  of  Scripture,  by  disputations  and  bold  contro- 
versial writings,  by  numerous  letters  and  circular  epistles,  by 
advice  and  warning,  by  intercourse  with  persons  of  all  classes  of 
society,  by  pointed  maxims  and  hymns,  but  especially  by  his 
translation  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  into  the  German  language. § 

*  "  Doctrina  Catholica  et  Evangelica,  quam  Ecclesiae  Augustanse  Confessioni 
addictie  profitentur."— From  the  title  of  the  "Confessio  Cathol.,  Frankfurti  et 
Lipsiae,  1G79,"  folio. 

f  In  a  letter  to  Erasmus  he  commends  Luther  highly,  and  among  other  things 
speaks  of  him  as  "  Scripturarum  ad  miraculum  usque  peritum." 

X  Preceptor  of  Ferdinand,  author  of  the  distich, 
**  Japeti  de  gente  prior  majorve  Luthero 
Nemo  fuit,  nee  habent  secla  futura  parem."  —  Conf.  Cathol.,  p.  58  seq. 

I  Compendium  of  the  History  of  Doctrines,  by  K.  R.  Hagenbach,  Dr.  and 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Basle,  translated   by   Carl  W.  Buch, 


74  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

It  is  .  .  unjust  .  .  to  maintain  that  Luther's  profound  and 
dynamic  interpretation  of  the  sacrament,  which  on  that  very 
account  was  less  perspicuous  and  intelligible,  had  its  origin  in 
nothing  but  partial  stupidity  or  stubbornness.  The  opinion 
which  each  of  these  reformers  (Zuinglius  and  Luther)  enter- 
tained concerning  the  sacraments,  was  most  intimately  con- 
nected with  his  whole  religious  tendency,  which,  in  its  turn, 
stood  in  connection  with  the  different  development  of  the 
churches  which  they  respectively  founded." 

Hallam  has  offered,  in  his  ''  Introduction  to  the  Literature 
of  Europe,"  a  work  acceptable  in  the  great  dearth, 
Hallam.       .^_^  ^^^  lauguagc,  of  all  books   of   the  kind,  but 
neither  worthy,  in  all  respects,  of  the  subject  nor  of  the  reputa- 
tion of  its  author.     For  too  much  of  it  is  obviously,  in  the  most 
unfavorable  sense,  second-hand,  and  even  in  its  dependence,  it 
does  not  rest  on  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  best  sources 
whence  opinions  can  be  had  ready-made.      Would  it  not  be 
thouo:ht  preposterous  for  a  man  to  write  an  introduction  to 
classic  literature  who  knew  nothing  of  the  Latin  language, 
and  depended  for  his  information  on  the  translations  existing 
in  his  mother  tongue?     Hallam  has  been  guilty  of  a  greater 
absurdity  than  this ;  for  in  total  ignorance  of  the  most  import- 
ant language  in  Europe,  he  has  pretended  to  give  a  view  of  its 
literature  —  a  literature  almost  none  of  which,  comparatively, 
exists,  even  in  the  imperfect  medium  of  translations  into  Eng- 
lish.    He  displays  everywhere,  too,  an  ignorance  of  theology 
which  nirtkes  his  views  on  theological  literature  not  only  inad- 
equate, but  often  absurd.     There  is,  too,  an  air  of  carelessness 
in  his  treatment  of  it,  which  seems,  at  least,  to  involve  that 
he  feels  little  interest  in  it,  or  that  a  man  of  his  position  in 
general  letters  is  condescending,  in  touching  such  matters  at 
all.     It  is  one  of  the  poorest  affectations  of  men  of  the  world 
to  talk  of  theology,  in  a  tone  of  flippancy,  as  if  it  were  too 

Edinburgh,  Clark,  1847,  vol.  ii.,  150,  (Am  ed.,  edited  by  Dr.  H.  B.  Smith, 
1862.)  Hagenbach's  work  has  an  occasional  slip.  An  illustration  lies  just  under 
our  eye:  "Nor  did  the  authors  of  the  Symbolical  Books  differ  from  Luther,  on 
Transubstantiation."  Very  true,  but  half  of  Hagenbach's  proof  is  a  citation  from 
the  Smalcald  Articles,  i.  e.  he  proves  that  Luther  did  not  differ  from  Luther. 


HALLAM.  75 

vague  for  a  thinker,  too  dull  to  inspire  enthusiasm.  They 
speak  and  write  of  it,  as  if  they  were  with  difficulty  repressing 
a  yawn.  •  But  Ilallam  is  not  guilty  of  mere  listlessness  in  his 
treatment  of  theological  topics.  He  is  a  partisan,  and  a  very 
ill-informed  one. 

Especially  is  his  account  of  the  Reformation  and  of  Luther 
full  of  ignorance  and  full  of  prejudice.  He  seems  to  have  pre- 
pared his  mind  for  a  just  estimate  of  Luther  by  reading,  with 
intense  admiration,  Bossuet's  "Variations,"  though,  as  he  tells 
us,  with  great  impartiality,  "  It  would  not  be  just  probably  to 
give  Bossuet  credit  in  every  part  of  that  powerful  delineation 
of  Luther's  theological  tenets."  He  charges  on  the  writings 
of  Luther,  previous  to  1520,  various  "  Antinomian  paradoxes," 
but  yet  he, has  the  candor  to  say:  "It  must  not  be  supposed 
for  a  moment  that  Luther,  whose  soul  was  penetrated  with  a 
fervent  piety,  and  whose  integrity,  as  well  as  purity  of  life,  are 
unquestioned,  could  mean  to  give  any  encouragement  to  a 
licentious  disregard  of  moral  virtue,  which  he  valued  as  in 
itself  lovely  before  God  as  well  as  man,  though  in  the  technical 
style  of  his  theology  he  might  deny  its  proper  obligation.  But 
his  temper  led  him  to  follow  up  any  proposition  of  Scripture 
to  every  consequence  that  might  seem  to  result  from  its  literal 
meaning." 

"  Every  solution  of  the  conduct  of  the  reformers  must  be 
nugatory  except  one,  that  they  were  men  absorbed  by  the  con- 
viction that  they  were  fighting  the  battle  of  God."— -"It  is 
hardly  correct  to  say  of  Luther,  that  he  erected  his  system  on 
the  ruins  of  Popery,  for  it  was  rather  the  growth  and  expan- 
sion in  his  mind  of  one  positive  dogma,  justification  by  faith, 
in  the  sense  in  w^hich  he  took  it,  (which  can  be  easily  shown 
to  have  preceded  the  dispute  about  indulgence,)  that  broke 
down  and  crushed  successively  the  various  doctrines  of  the 
Eornish  Church."* 

*  Literature  of  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  166.  Hallam,  putting  a  different  construc- 
tion from  Le  Clerc  on  some  theological  expressions,  adds:  "But  of  course  my 
practice  in  these  nice  questions  is  not  great."  Vol.  ii,,  p.  41,  n.  After  adjust- 
ing in  the  text  the  comparative  merits  of  half  a  dozen  theologians,  he  says  he 
has  done  it  "in  deference  to  common  reputation,"  "for  I  am  wholly  ignorant 
of  the  writings  of  all."  Page  287. 


76  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

"  A  better  tone  "  (in  preaching)  "  began  with  Luther.  His 
language  was  sometimes  rude  and  low,  but  persuasive,  artless, 
powerful.  He  gave  many  useful  precepts,  as  well  as  examples, 
for  pulpit  eloquence."  —  "In  the  history  of  the  Reformation, 
Luther  is  incomparably  the  greatest  name.  We  see  him,  in  the 
skilful  composition  of  Robertson,  the  chief  figure  of  a  group 
of  go\\'nsmen,  standing  in  contrast  on  the  canvas  with  the 
crowned  rivals  of  France  and  Austria,  and  their  attendant 
warriors,  but  blended  in  the  unity  of  that  historic  picture.  It 
is  admitted  on  all  sides,  that  he  wrote  his  own  language  with 
force,  and  he  is  reckoned  one  of  its  best  models.  The  hymns 
in  use  with  the  Lutheran  Church,  many  of  which  are  his  own, 
possess  a  simple  dignity  and  devoutness  never  probably  excelled 
in  that  class  of  poetry,  and  alike  distinguished  from  the  poverty 
of  Sternhold  or  Brady,  and  from  the  meretricious  ornament  of 
later  writers."  —  "  It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  a  man  of  his 
vivid  parts  fails  to  perceive  an  advantage  in  that  close  grap- 
pling, sentence  by  sentence,  with  an  adversary,  which  fills  most 
of  his  controversial  writings ;  and  in  scornful  irony  he  had  no 
superior."* 

*  Literature  of  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  197.  The  great  currency  which  Haliam's 
name  gives  to  any  view  he  expresses,  would  make  it  well  worth  while  for  some 
one  competent  to  the  task,  to  review  all  his  charges  against  Luther,  and  posi- 
tive Evangelical  Protestantism,  as  has  been  done,  so  ably,  on  some  points,  by 
Archdeacon  Hare.  An  instance  of  the  knowing  air  with  which  a  man  ignorant 
of  his  subject  may  write  about  it.  occurs  in  the  following  sentence  (i.  278): 
"After  the  death  of  Melanchthon,  a  controversy,  began  by  one  Brentius,  relating 
to  the  ubiquity,  as  it  was  called,  of  Christ's  body,  proceeded  with  much  heat." 
*•  One  Milton,  a  blind  man,"  has  grown  into  a  classic  illustration  of  happy  appre- 
ciation of  character.  "One  Brentius"  ought  to  contest  a  place  with  it.  Bren- 
tius, whose  name,  in  the  department  of  polemic  theology,  is  mentioned  next  that 
of  Luther  and  of  Melanchthon  in  the  early  history  of  the  Reformation  —  Bren- 
tius, who  stood  so  high  in  the  judgment  of  Luther  himself,  one  of  the  acutest 
judges  of  character,  to  whom  Luther  applied  terms  of  commendation  which 
seemed  so  near  an  approach  to  flattery,  that  he  felt  it  necessary  to  protest  that 
he  is  speaking  in  godly  sincerity,  whom  he  compared,  in  relation  to  himself,  to  the 
"still  small  voice  following  the  whirlwind,  earthquake,  and  fire" — Brentius, 
whose  contributions  to  sacred  interpretation  not  only  stood  in  the  highest  repute 
in  his  own  land,  but  several  of  which  had  sufficient  reputation  to  lead  to  their 
translation  in  England,  (as,  for  instance,  his  "Arguments  and  Summaries," 
translated  by  John  Calcaskie,  London,  1550;  his  Commentary  on  Esther,  by  John 
Stockwood,  London,  1554  ;  his  Homilies  and  Exegesis  on  John,  by  Richard  Shirry, 


ARCHDEACON  HARE.  77 

Kext  to  the  Milners,*  who  were  the  first  English  writers 
who  gave  a  large  and  just  view  of  Luther's  character  and  Lu- 
ther's work,  is  to  be  placed  Archdeacon  Ilare,  who  in  a  note  to 
his  "  Mission   of  the  Comforter,"  a   note  which 

-,  •      1  •        ,      T     T       J  T  •        ,      ArchfJeiicon  Hare. 

grew  into  a  volume,  vindicated  Luther  against 
"his  recent  English  assailants."  f  First  of  these  is  Hallam  ; 
then  follow  ^N'ewman,  Ward,  and  Dr.  Mill.  The  last  reply  is 
to  Sir  William  Hamilton,  who  has  left  an  indelible  disgrace 
upon  his  name  by  the  manner  and  measure  of  his  attack  upon 
Luther.  He  has  largely  drawn  his  material  from  secondary 
sources,  wholly  unworthy  of  credit,  and  has  been  betrayed 
into  exhibitions  of  io;norance  so  astoundins;  as  to  excite  sus- 
picion  that  Sir  William  was  rather  a  large  reader  than  a 
thorough  scholar.  His  fierceness  of  polemic,  which  his  greatest 
admirers  lament,  was  never  more  manifest  nor  more  in- 
excusable than  it  is  here.  Archdeacon  Hare's  vindication  is 
everywhere  successful,  and  not  unfrequently  overwhelming. 
He  has  won  for  himself  the  right  of  being  listened  to  respect- 
fully, even  reverently,  in  his  estimate  of  Luther  ::j:  ''As  he  has 
said  of  St.  Paul's  words,  his  own  are  not  dead  words,  but  liv- 
ing creatures,  and  have  hands  and  feet.  It  no  longer  surprises 
us  that  this  man  who  wrote  and  spoke  thus,  although  no  more 
than  a  poor  monk,  should  have  been  mightier  than  the  Pope, 
and  the  Emperor  to  boot,  with  all  their  hosts,  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  —  that  the  rivers  of  living  water  should  have  swept  half 
Germany,  and  in  the  course  of  time  the  chief  part  of  Northern 
Europe,  out  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the  region  of 
Evangelical  light,  ^o  day  in  spring,  when  life  seems  bursting 
from  every  bud,  and  gushing  from  every  pore,  is  fuller  of  life 
than  his  pages;  and  if  they  are  not  without  tbe  strong  breezes 

London,  1550;)  and  whose  writings  are  still  consulted  with  delight  by  the  scholar, 
and  republished  — such  a  man  could  not  have  had  such  a  seal  of  insignificance 
attached  to  his  name  by  any  other  than  a  writer  ignorant  at  least  of  this  part  of 
his  theme. 

*  Hist,  of  Church  of  Christ,  by  Joseph  Milner,  with  add.  by  Is.  Milner,  Lond. 
(1819)  1847,  4  vols.  8vo. 

f  Vindication  of  Luther,  2d  ed.,  Lond.,  1855. 

X  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  from  2d  Lond.  ed.,  Boston,  1854,  pp.  281,  402, 
403. 


78  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of  spring,  these  too  have  to  bear  their  part  in  the  work  of 
purification." — "How  far  superior  his  expositions  of  Scripture 
are,  in  the  deep  and  living  apprehension  of  the  primary  truths 
of  the  Gospel,  to  those  of  the  best  among  the  Fathers,  even  of 
Augustin !  If  we  would  do  justice  to  any  of  the  master  minds 
in  history,  we  must  compare  them  with  their  predecessors. 
When  we  come  upon  these  truths  in  Luther,  after  wandering 
through  the  dusky  twilight  of  the  preceding  centuries,  it  seems 
almost  like  the  sunburst  of  a  new  Revelation,  or  rather  as  if 
the  sun,  which  set  when  St.  Paul  was  taken  away  from  the 
earth,  had  suddenly  started  up  again.  Verily,  too,  it  does  us 
good,  when  we  have  been  walking  about  among  those  who 
have  only  dim  guesses  as  to  where  they  are,  or  whither  they 
are  going,  and  who  halt  and  look  back,  and  turn  aside  at  every 
other  step,  to  see  a  man  taking  his  stand  on  the  Eternal  Rock, 
and  gazing  steadfastly  with  unsealed  eyes  on  the  very  Sun  of 
righteousness." 

Hase,  most  eloquent,  most  condensed,  most  happ}^  in  giving 
the  cream  of  things  of  all  the  writers  of  his  school,  shows  a  just 
and  appreciating  spirit  in  all  he  has  said  of  Luther.    ITot  only 
in  his  general  allusions  to  the  primal  spirit  of  the  Reforma- 
tion embodied  in  Luther,  his  correct  deduction  of  that  great 
movement,  neither  from  the  skeptical  nor  scientific  tendency, 
but  from  faith  and  holy  desire,  but  still  more  fully 
in  the  happy  outline   of  Luther's    career   in   his 
Church  history,  has  he  shown  that  rs  far  as  one  occupying  so 
different  a  theological  position  from  Luther  can  thoroughly 
understand  him,  he  does  so.     Xot  only  as  a  fine  illustration  of 
our  theme,  but  as  a  highly  characteristic  specimen  of  the  work 
of  Hase,  to  which  we  have  just  alluded,  we  give  the  whole  of 
his  chapter  on  "Luther's  death  and  public  character."     "In 
the  last  year  of  his  life,  Luther,  worn  out  by  labor  and  sick- 
ness, took  such  offence  at  the  immorality  and  wanton  modes 
at  Wittenberg,  that  he  left  it,  (1545,)  and  only  consented  to 
return  at  the  most  urgent  supplications  of  the  University  and 
Elector.     He  saw  a  gloomy  period  impending  over  the  land  of 
his  fathers,  and  longed  to  depart  in  peace.     Over  his  last  days 
Btill  shone   some   of   the    brightness    of  his    best  years — the 


HA  SE.  79 

words  bold,  child-like,  playful,  amid  exalted  thoughts.  Ilav- 
ino*  been  called  to  Eisleben  to  act  as  arbitrator  in  settlino:  some 
difficulty  of  the  Counts  of  Mansfeld,  he  there,  on  the  night 
of  February  18th,  1546,  rested  in  a  last  calm  and  holy  sleep. 
The  mutations  of  the  times  on  whose  pinnacle  he  stood,  im- 
parted to  his  life  its  stronger  antitheses.  He  had  regarded 
the  Pope  as  the  most  holy,  and  most  Satanic  father.  In  his 
roused  passions  emotions  had  stormily  alternated.  The  free- 
dom of  the  Spirit  was  the  object  of  his  life,  and  yet  he  had 
been  jealous  for  the  letter.  In  trust  on  all  the  power  of  the 
Spirit,  he  had  seized  the  storm  of  revolution  by  the  reins,  and 
yet  on  occasion  had  suggested  that  it  would  be  well  if  the 
Pope  and  his  whole  brood  were  drowned  in  the  Tyrrhene  Sea. 
But  throughout  he  had  uttered  with  an  unbounded  ingenuous- 
ness his  convictions,  and  was  a  stranger  to  every  worldly 
interest.  With  a  powerful  sensuousness,  he  stood  fast  rooted 
in  the  earth,  but  his  head  reached  into  heaven.  In  the  crea- 
tive spirit,  no  man  of  his  time  was  like  him ;  his  discourses 
were  often  rougher  than  his  own  rough  time  seemed  to  ap 
prove,  but  in  popular  eloquence  his  equal  has  never  arisen  in 
Germany.  From  anguish  and  wrath  grew  his  joy  in  the  con 
test.  Where  he  once  had  discovered  wrong,  he  saw  nothing 
but  hell.  But  his  significance  rests  less  upon  those  acts  by 
which  he  searched  and  destroyed  —  others  could  more  easily 
and  more  readily  tear  themselves  away  from  the  old  Church- 
it  rests  much  more  upon  his  power  of  building  up,  on  his  earn 
est  full  faith  and  love ;  though  in  hours  of  gloom,  through 
the  temptations  of  Satan,  he  imagined  that  he  had  lost  God, 
and  Christ,  and  all  together.  Especially,  in  opposition  to  his 
antagonists,  did  he  believe,  and  declare  without  reservation, 
that  he  was  a  chosen  instrument  of  God,  known  in  heaven,  on 
earth,  and  in  hell.  But  with  himself,  personally  considered, 
he  would  have  nothing  to  do ;  he  would  recognize  no  doctrine 
of  Luther,  and  his  sublime  trust  in  God  pointed  not  to  his 
personal  delivery  from  dangers,  but  to  the  faith  that  God  could 
every  day  create  ten  '  Doctor  Martins.'  Insipid  objections  and 
narrow  vindications  are  forgotten ;  such  a  man  belongs  not  to 
one  party,  but  to  the  German  people  and  to  Christendom." 


80  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

The  distinctive  characteristics  of  Gothe  and  Herder  dis- 
played themselves  in  the  difference  of  their  feelings  towards 
Luther.  "  What  seemed  to  Gothe  narrow  and  partial,  Her- 
der called  noble  and  philanthropic ;  while,  on  the  contrary, 
what  Herder  admired  as  the  infinitude  of  a  great  idea,  reveal- 
ing itself  to  man  in  various  godlike  emanations  — 
in  the  valor  of  the  hero,  the  wisdom  of  the  legisla- 
tor, the  inspiration  of  the  poet,  or  the  events  of  a  world  —  this 
sort  of  elevation  moved  Gothe  so  little,  that  such  characters 
as  Luther  and  Coriolanus  excited  in  him  a  sort  of  uncomforta- 
ble feeling,  which  could  be  satisfactorily  explained  only  on  the 
hypothesis  that  their  natures  stood  in  a  mysterious  sort  of 
opposition  to  his.  GiJthe's  genius  and  disposition  were  for 
the  beautiful ;  Herder's  for  the  sublime." 

Herder  has  given,  in  his  writings,  the  most  unmistakable 
evidence  of  his  admiration  of  Luther.  There  is  no  author 
whom  he  cites  so  frequently,  so  largely,  and  so  admiringly,  as 
Luther.  "Luther  has  long  been  recognized  as  teacher  of  the 
German  nation,  nay,  as  co-reformer  of  all  of  Europe  that  is 
this  day  enlightened.  He  was  a  great  man  and  a  great  patriot. 
Even  nations  that  do  not  embrace  the  principles  of  his  religion 
enjoy  the  fruits  of  his  Reformation.  Like  a  true  Hercules,  he 
grappled  with  that  spiritual  despotism  which  abrogates  or 
buries  all  free,  sound  thought,  and  gave  back  to  whole  nations 
the  use  of  reason,  and  in  that  very  sphere  where  it  is  hardest 
to  restore  it  —  in  spiritual  things.  The  povv^er  of  his  speech 
and  of  his  honest  spirit  united  itself  with  sciences,  which 
revived  from  him  and  with  him  ;  associated  itself  with  the 
yearnings  of  the  best  thinkers  in  all  conditions,  who,  in  some 
things,  had  very  different  views  from  his  own,  and  thus  formed 
for  the  first  time  a  popular  literary  public  in  Germany  and  the 
neiffhborino:  countries.  !N^ow  men  read  what  never  had  been 
read ;  now  men  learned  to  read  who  had  never  learned  before. 
Schools  and  academies  were  founded,  German  hymns  were 
sung,  and  preaching  in  the  German  language  ceased  to  be  rare. 
The  people  obtained  the  Bible,  possessed  at  the  very  least  the 
Catechism  ;  numerous  sects  of  Anabaptists  and  other  errorists 
arose,  many  of  which,  each  in  its  own  way,  contributed,  to  the 


HERDER.  81 

scientific  or  popular  elucidation  of  contested  matters,  and  thus, 
also,  to  the  cultivation  of  the  understanding,  the  polishing  of 
language  and  of  taste.  Would  that  his  spirit  had  been  fol- 
lowed, and  that,  in  this  method  of  free  examination,  other 
objects  had  been  taken  up  which  did  not  lie  immediately  in 
his  monastic  or  church  sphere ;  that,  in  a  word,  the  principles 
on  w  hich  he  judged  and  acted  had  been  applied  to  them.  But 
what  avails  it  to  teach  or  reproach  times  gone  by  ?  Let  us  rise 
and  apply  his  mode  of  thought,  his  luminous  hints,  and  the 
truths  uttered  for  our  time,  with  equal  strength  and  naivete.  I 
have  marked  in  his  w^ritings  a  number  of  sentences  and  ex- 
pressions in  which  (as  he  often  called  himself)  he  is  presented 
as  Ecclesiastes,  or  the  preacher  and  teacher  of  the  German 
nation." 

"  Of  Luther  as  a  preacher,"  Herder  says :  "  He  spoke  the 
simple,  strong,  unadorned  language  of  the  understanding  ;  he 
spoke  from  the  heart,  not  from  the  head  and  from  memory. 
His  sermons,  therefore,  have  long  been  the  models,  especially 
of  those  preachers  in  our  church  who  are  of  stable  minds." 

Speaking  of  the  contents  of  the  Psalms,  he  sa^^s,  in  the  same 
beautiful  letters  from  which  we  have  just  quoted:  "  I  am  sure 
I  can  give  you  no  better  key  to  them  than  the  exquisite  preface 
of  Luther  to  this,  his  darling  book.  He  will  tell  you  what  is 
in  them,  how  to  apply  them,  and  turn  them  to  use." 

Speaking  of  the  romantic  and  moonshiny  way  of  preaching 
which  prevailed  in  his  time,  he  closes  a  most  severe  paragraph 
with  the  exclamation :  "  0  Luther !  when  we  recpU  thee  and 
thy  pure,  solid  language,  comprehended  by  all !  " 

^'  Would  you  hear  the  nature,  power,  and  necessity  of  this  liv- 
ing principle  of  faith,  treated  in  a  manner  living  and  clearly 
defined,  read  Luther's  writings.  He  shows  a  hundred  times 
and  at  large,  how  little  is  contained  in  that  beggar's  bag  of  a 
gradual  reform  of  our  bad  habits ;  how  little  of  Christianity 
there  is  in  it,  and  of  how  little  worth  it  is  before  God.  But  he 
himself,  even  at  that  early  day,  mourned  that  so  few  formed  a 
right  conception  of  that  which  he  called  true,  life- restoring 
faith,  how  few  knew  how  to  give  it,  in  accordance  with  his 
meaning,  its  practical  power  ! "     "  The  doctrine  of  justification 


82  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

is  so  closely  associated  with  that  of  faith,  that  one  must  stand 
or  fall  with  the  other.  On  this,  also,  the  corner-stone  of 
Lutheranism,  pre-eminently  hold  fast,  I  beg  yon,  by  Luther's 
writings.  I  think  it  was  Spener  who  had  felt,  with  reference 
to  this  system,  a  doubt  which,  it  seemed  to  him,  nothing  could 
overthrow  ;  he  read  Luther's  writings  and  his  doubts  vanished. 
But,  as  I  have  said,  Luther  already  mourned  that  not  all  com- 
prehended him,  and  whilst  every  one  was  crying  out  about 
faith,  justification,  and  good  works,  few  had  really  grasped  his 
meaning  and  his  spirit ;  the  consequences,  both  immediate  and 
long  after  his  death,  were  melancholy  enough.  When  in  this 
matter  you  need  instruction,  or  long  to  have  difiiculties  re- 
solved, go  to  this  living  man  of  faith  himself,  this  legitimate 
son  of  Paul.  Li  his  writing  is  so  much  sound  sense,  with  such 
strength  of  spirit  and  fervor  of  an  honest  heart,  that  often, 
when  worn  out  with  the  frigid  refinings  and  speculations  of 
a  more  recent  date,  I  have  found  that  I  was  revived  by  him 
alone."  "Conjoin  with  his  biography,  his  own  writings,  (0 
that  we  had  a  complete  collection  of  them  in  the  languages 
in  which  he  wrote  them !)  read  these,  and  you  will  know  him 
differently,  for  he  gives  a  picture  of  himself  in  every  line." 

"  May  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  revive  in  this  land 
(Germany)  —  the  cradle  of  the  Reformation  —  the  spirit  of  the 
reformers,  so  that  the  mantle  of  Luther  may  fall  upon  his  pro- 
fessed followers  and  admirers,  that  all  who  pretend  to  teach 
may  be  taught  of  God,  men  of  faith,  learning,  research,  and 
above  all,  of  ardent  and  unfeigned  piety." 

Kahnis :  *  "  IS'othing  but  the  narrowness  of  party  can  deny 
that  there  are  respects  in  which  no  other  reformer  can  bear 
comparison  with  Luther  as  the  person  of  the  Re- 
formation. The  Romanists  do  but  prejudice  their 
own  cause,  when  they  undervalue  a  man  who,  with  nothing 
but  the  weapons  of  the  Spirit,  shook  to  its  lowest  depths  the 
Roman  Catholic  entire  Churcli  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Every  Cath- 
jmigment.  st.>i-  oUc  who  claims  to  be  a  lover  of  truth,  should  concur 
^*"^^  in  the  judgment  of  Count  Stolberg,  who,  though 

he   deserted   Protestantism   for   the   Catholic   Churcli,   says: 

*  Ueb.  d.  Principien  d.  Protestantismus,  Leipz.,  1865. 


F.   V.   RAUMER'S   REPLY    TO    PALAVICINI.  83 

*  Against  Luther's  person  I  would  not  cast  a  stone.  In  him  I 
honor,  not  alone  one  of  the  grandest  spirits  that  have  ever  lived, 
but  a  great  religiousness  also,  which  never  forsook  him.'" 
There  have  indeed  been  Roman  Catholics,  who  did  not  breathe 
toward  Luther  the  spirit  of  Schlegd  and  Stolberg,  and  from 
one  of  the  greatest  of  these,  whose  sketch  is  peculiarly  full  of 
genius,  and  has  been  called  "  an  official  one,"  by  F.  V.  Raumer, 
we  quote.  Palavicini,  the  historian  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  thus  characterizes  Luther:  "A  fruitful 
genius,  but  one  that  produced  bitter  rather  than  ripe  fruits  ;  he 
was  rather  the  abortive  birth  of  a  giant,  than  a  healthy  child 
born  in  due  time.  A  mighty  spirit,  but  better  fitted  for  tear- 
ing down  than  for  building  up.  His  learning  was  more  like  a 
drenching  rain  which  beats  down  all  before  it,  than  like  the 
soft  shower  of  summer,  beneath  which  nature  grows  fruitful. 
His  eloquence  was  in  its  language  coarse,  and  crude  in  its  mat- 
ter, like  the  storm  which  blinds  the  eyes  with  the  dust  it  drives 
before  it.  Bold  in  beginning  strife,  no  man  was  more  timor- 
ous wdien  danger  was  near ;  his  courage  was,  at  best,  that  of  a 
beast  at  bay.  He  frequently  promised  to  be  silent,  if  his  oppo- 
nents w^oald  be  silent  too  —  a  proof  that  he  was  determined  by 
earthly  influences.  He  was  protected  by  the  princes,  only 
because  they  coveted  the  Church's  goods ;  he  was  a  disturber 
of  the  Church,  to  the  injury  of  others,  and  without  benefit  to 
himself.  History  will  continue  to  name  him,  but  more  to  his 
shame  than  to  his  renown.  The  Church,  the  vine,  has  been 
pruned,  that  it  may  shoot  forth  with  fresh  life :  the  faithful 
have  been  separated  from  the  seditious.  Opposed  to  him 
stands  the  major  part  —  the  more  noble,  the  more  moderate, 
the  more  holy." 

To  this  no  better  answer  can  be  furnished  than  that  which 
the  great  historian  and  statesman,  F.  V.  Raumer,  has  o-iven: 
"  To  this  judgment  of  Palavicini,"  he  says,  "  after  a  conscientious 
testing  of  all  the  facts,  we  cannot  assent  —  but  are  constrained 
to  acknowledo-e  the  truth  to  be  this  :  A  fruitful     ^ ,,  „ 

*-  F.  V.  Kaiimer  s 

genius,  whose  fruits  could  not  all  come  to  a  mellow  reply  to  Paiavi- 

ripeness,  because  they  were  prematurely  shaken  down  *"'"'' 

by  storms.     A  mighty  spirit,  who  helped  to  arouse  the  storms  ; 


84  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION: 

but,  had  not  the  building  been  undermined  by  fearful  abuses,  a 
purification  might  have  been  possible  without  overthrowing  it. 
Only  because  the  builders  who  were  called  to  the  work  of 
reform,  not  only  refused  to  perform  it,  but  increased  the  evil, 
did  he  become  their  master;  and  with  success  grew  his  boldness 
or  his  faith  in  his  divine  vocation,  and  his  wrath  against  his 
opponents.  In  his  contest  with  the  Papacy  he  placed  in  the 
van  Evangelical  freedom  of  faith,  and  this  is  the  source  of 
Protestantism  ;  in  the  establishment  of  his  Church  he  often 
was  willing  to  shackle  thought,  lost  his  own  clearness  of  percep- 
tion, and  became  intolerant.  But  his  hardest  and  least  becom- 
ing language  appears  mild  in  comparison  with  the  blood-thirsty 
intolerance  of  his  opponents,  mild  in  comparison  with  the  heads- 
man's axe  and  the  stake.  A  noble  eloquence  supplanted  the 
unintelligible  prattle  of  the  schools ;  through  him  Germany 
once  more  learned  to  speak,  the  German  people  once  more 
to  hear.  He  who  is  displeased  with  his  style,  or  with  his  mat- 
ter, must  yet  confess  that  his  writings  reveal  everywhere  the 
inspiration  of  the  fear  of  God  and  the  power  of  faith.  Luther 
never  dissimulated.  Persuasions,  promises,  threats  had  no 
power  to  shake  his  rock-iirm  will,  his  indomitable  purpose;  and 
the  seeming  self-will  and  severity  connected  with  this  arose, 
at  least,  from  no  commonplace  and  perverted  character,  l^o 
man  ever  grasps  the  whole  truth,  in  perfect  clearness  ;  but  few 
have  more  earnestly  striven  to  attain  it,  and  with  more  perfect 
self-renunciation  confessed  it,  than  Luther.  Among  his  oppo- 
nents not  one  can  be  compared  with  him  in  personal  qualities : 
with  all  his  faults,  he  remains  greatest  and  most  memorable 
among  men  ;  a  man  in  whose  train  follows  a  whole  world  of 
aspiration,  eftbrt,  and  achievement." 

In  affinity  with  that  of  Yon  Raumer  is  the  estimate  of 
Panke:  "  Throughout  we  see  Luther  directing  his  weapons  on 
both  sides  —  ascainst  the  Papacy,  which  sought  to 
reconquer  the  world  then  struggling  tor  its  eman- 
cipation —  and  against  the  sects  of  many  names  which  sprang 
up  beside  him,  assailing  Church  and  State  together.  The 
great  Reformer,  if  we  may  use  an  expression  of  our  days,  was 
one  of  the  iireatest  Conservatives  that  ever  lived." 


wieland—stang—melanchthon:  85 

Ernst  Karl  Wieland  opens  the  last  paragraph  of  his  Charac- 
teristics of  Luther  with  the  words :  "  Such  was  he, 

,  .  ,   .  '  Wieland. 

SO  great  in  whatever  aspect  we  view  him,  so  worthy 

of  admiration,  so  deserving  of  universal  gratitude  ;  alike  great 

as  a  man,  a  citizen,  and  a  scholar." 

Stang,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  one  of  the  best  lives 
of  Luther,  thus  closes  his  biography :  "  We  stand  before  the 
image  of  the  great  Reformer  with  the  full  conviction  that 
between  the  first  century,  when  Christianity  appeared  in  its 
youth,  and  the  sixteenth,  when  it  obtained  the 
maturity  of  its  riper  age,  not  one  of  our  race  has 
appeared,  in  whom  the  ever-creative  spirit  of  God,  the  spirit 
of  light  and  of  law,  has  found  nobler  embodiment,  or  wrought 
with  richer  sequence." 

But  among  all  the  tributes  which  the  centuries  have  laid  at 
the  feet  or  on  the  tomb  of  LutVier,  none  are  more  touchinor 
than  the  words  in  Avhich  Melanchthon  showed  that 

T         1  1       -i  1111  11  1'  n«  Melanchthon. 

Luther  s  death  had  brought  back,  in  all  its  tender- 
ness, the  early,  pure  devotion.  Melanchthon,  the  Hamlet  of 
the  Reformation,  shrinking  from  action  into  contemplation, 
with  a  dangerous  yearning  for  a  peace  which  must  have  been 
hollow  and  transient,  had  become  more  and  more  entangled  in 
the  complications  of  a  specious  but  miserable  policy  which  he 
felt  made  him  justly  suspected  by  those  whose  confidence  in 
him  had  once  been  unlimited.  Luther  was  saddened  by  Me- 
lanchthon's  feebleness,  and  Melanchthon  was  put  under  restraint 
by  Luther's  firmness.  Melanchthon  was  betrayed  into  writing 
weak,  fretful,  unworthy  words  in  regard  to  Luther,  whose  sur- 
passing love  to  Melanchthon  had  been  sorely  tested,  but  had  never 
yielded.  But  death  makes  or  restores  more  bonds  than  it  breaks. 
When  the  tidings  of  Luther's  death  reached  Wittenberg,  Me- 
lanchthon cried  out  in  anguish :  '*  0  my  father,  my  father, 
the  chariot  of  Israel,  and  the  horsemen  thereof!  "  — tributary 
words  from  one  of  the  greatest,  to  the  greatest.  He  was  gone 
of  whom  Melanchthon,  cautious  in  praise,  and  measured  in 
language,  had  said,  from  a  full  heart:  "Luther  is  too  great, 
too  wonderful  for  me  to  depict  in  words."  — "  If  there  be  a  man 
on  earth  I  love  with  my  whole  heart,  that  man  is  Luther." 


86  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

And,  again  :  "  One  is  an  interpreter  ;  one,  a  logician  ;  another, 
an  orator,  affluent  and  beautiful  in  speech ;  but  Luther  is  all 
in  all  —  whatever  he  writes,  whatever  he  utters,  pierces  to  the 
soul,  fixes  itself  like  arrows  in  the  heart — he  is  a  miracle 
among  men." 

What  need  w^e  say  more,  after  such  eulogies  ? 

The  greatness  of  some  men  only  makes  us  feel  that  though 
they  did  well,  others  in  their  place  might  have  done  just  as 
they  did :  Luther  had  that  exceptional  greatness,  which  con- 
vinces the  world  that  he  alone  could  have  done  the  work.  He 
was  not  a  mere  mountain -top,  catching  a  little  earlier  the 
beams  which,  by  their  own  course,  would  soon  have  found  the 
valleys ;  but  rather,  by  the  divine  ordination  under  w^hich  he 
rose,  like  the  sun  itself,  without  w^hich  the  light  on  mountain 
and  valley  would  have  been  but  a  starlight  or  moonlight.  He 
was  not  a  secondary  orb,  reflecting  the  light  of  another  orb, 
as  was  Melanchthon,  and  even  Calvin  ;  still  less  the  moon  of 
a  planet,  as  Bucer  or  Brentius  ;  but  the  centre  of  undulations 
which  filled  a  system  with  glory.  Yet,  though  he  rose  won- 
drously  to  a  divine  ideal,  he  did  not  cease  to  be  a  man  of  men. 
He  won  the  trophies  of  powder,  and  the  garlands  of  affection.  Po- 
tentates feared  him,  and  little  children  played  with  him.  He 
has  monuments  in  marble  and  bronze,  medals  in  silver  and  gold ; 
bat  his  noblest  monument  is  the  best  love  of  the  best  hearts, 
and  the  brightest,  purest  impression  of  his  image  has  been 
left  in  the  souls  of  regenerated  nations.  He  was  the  best 
teacher  of  freedom  and  of  loyalty.  He  has  made  the  righteous 
throne  stronger,  and  the  innocent  cottage  happier.  He  knew 
how  to  laugh,  and  how  to  weep ;  therefore,  millions  laughed 
with  him,  and  millions  wept  for  him.  He  w'as  tried  by  deep 
sorrow,  and  brilliant  fortune  ;  he  begged  the  poor  scholar's 
bread,  and  from  Emperor  and  estates  of  the  realm  received  an 
embassy,  with  a  prince  at  its  head,  to  ask  him  to  untie  the 
knot  which  defied  the  power  of  the  soldier  and  the  sagacity 
of  the  statesman ;  it  was  he  who  added  to  the  Litany  the  words : 
'*  In  all  time  of  our  tribulation,  in  all  time  of  our  prosperity, 
help  us  good  Lord  ;"  but  whether  lured  by  the  subtlest  flattery 


SUMMARY    OF   LUTHER'S   CHARACTER.  87 

or  assailed  by  the  powers  of  hell,  tempted  with  the  mitre,  or 
threatened  with  the  stake,  he  came  oil*  more  than  conqueror  in 
all.  He  made  a  world  rich  forevermore,  and,  stripping  himself 
in  perpetual  charities,  died  in  poverty.  He  knew  how  to  com- 
mand —  for  he  had  learned  how  to  obey.  Had  he  been  less 
courageous,  he  would  have  attempted  nothing ;  had  he  been 
less  cautious,  he  would  have  ruined  all :  the  torrent  was  resist- 
less, but  the  banks  were  deep.  He  tore  up  the  mightiest  evils 
by  the  root,  but  shielded  with  his  own  life  the  tenderest  bud 
of  good  ;  he  combined  the  aggressiveness  of  a  just  radicalism 
with  the  moral  resistance  —  which  seemed  to  the  fanatic  the  pas- 
sive weakness  —  of  a  true  conservatism.  Faith-inspired,  he  was 
faith-inspiring.  Great  in  act  as  he  was  great  in  thought,  proving 
himself  fire  with  fire,  "  inferior  eyes  grew  great  by  his  exam- 
ple, and  put  on  the  dauntless  spirit  of  resolution."  The  world 
knows  his  faults.  He  could  not  hide  what  he  was.  His  trans- 
parent candor  gave  his  enemies  the  material  of  their  misrepre- 
sentation ;  but  they  cannot  blame  his  infirmities  without  bear- 
ing witness  to  the  nobleness  which  made  him  careless  of  appear- 
ances in  a  world  of  defamers.  For  himself,  he  had  as  little  of 
the  virtue  of  caution  as  he  had,  toward  others,  of  the  vice  of 
dissimulation.  Living  under  thousands  of  jealous  and  hating 
eyes,  in  the  broadest  light  of  day,  the  testimony  of  enemies  but 
fixes  the  result :  that  his  faults  were  those  of  a  nature  of  the 
most  consummate  grandeur  and  fulness,  faults  more  precious 
than  the  virtues  of  the  common  great.  Four  potentates  ruled 
the  mind  of  Europe  in  the  Reformation,  the  Emperor,  Erasmus, 
the  Pope,  and  Luther.  The  Pope  wanes,  Erasmus  is  little,  the 
Emperor  is  nothing,  but  Luther  abides  as  a  power  for  all  time. 
His  image  casts  itself  upon  the  current  of  ages,  as  the  moun- 
tain mirrors  itself  in  the  river  that  winds  at  its  foot  —  the 
mighty  fixing  itself  immutably  upon  the  changing. 


III. 

LUTHER'S  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAJMENT.* 


THE  author's  best  vindication  of  his  vocation  to  a  work 
must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  the  work  itself.     The 
fact  of  success  seems  to  dispense  with  the  necessity 

Luther's    call-  .  ^  ^  '       n  n 

iug  as  a  trans-  of  auj  argumcut,  lu  advaucc,  as  to  his  ntness  lor 
lator  of  the  Scrip-  ^jie  labor  ou  which  he  entered.     "We   need  no   a 

tures. 

"priori  proof  that  Milton  had  a  vocation  as  a 
poet,  or  Bacon  as  a  philosopher,  or  Gerhard  as  a  theologian. 
To  argue  it,  is  to  argue  in  the  sunlight  the  question  of  the 
sun's  adaptation  for  shining.  Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible 
is  itself  the  invincible  proof  of  his  vocation  to  the  work  of 

*  The  most  important  works  on  Luther's  Bible  are  the  following: 
I.  — In  defence  or  criticism  of  his  translation. 

Andrew:  Erinerung  y.  d.  Teutschen.  Bibl.  Dollmetsch.  TUbing.  1564. 

Traub  :  Avisa  0.  Warnung  von  Luther's  Teutsch.  Bib.     Ingolst.  1578. 

WiCELii:   Annotationes.   Leipz.   1536. 

Zanger:  Examen  Versionis.   Maintz.   1605. 

Beringer:  Rettung.   1613. 

Raithii  :  Vindiciae.   1676. 

A.  H.  Francke  :  Obs.  Biblicae.    1695. 

Hallbauer:  Animadversiones  in  Nov.  Germ.  Version.     Jena:  1731. 

Zehner:  Probe.  1750. 

Marheinecke:  Relig.  Werth.  d.  Bibeliibersetz.  Luther.  Berl.  1815. 

Stier:  Altes  und  Neues.  1828.     (In  defence  of  Me^'er's  Revision.) 

Darf  Luther's  Bibel,  etc.  1836. 
Grashof  :  D.  M.  L's.  Bibeluber.  in  ihr.  Verhalten.  z.  d.  Bediirfn.  d.  Zeit.  1835. 
HoPF :  Wiirdig.  d.  Luthersch.  Bibel.  Verdeutscht  mit  Riicks.  d.  Alt.  u.  Neuen 

Uebersetzung.  Niirnb.  1847. 
Rossler:  De  Vers.  Luth.  caute  emend.  1836. 

88 


LUTHER    AS   A   TRANSLATOR.  89 

preparing  it.    It  shines  its  own  evidence  into  the  eyes  of  every 
one  who  opens  it. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  not  without  historical  interest,  little  as  it 
is  necessar}^  logically,  to  look  at  the  evidence  of  Luther's  fitness 
for  the  work.  Some  of  the  facts  which  naturally  attract  our 
attention  here,  are  the  following : 

I.  Luther  was  v:ell  educated  as  a  hoy.  He  went  to  school  in 
Mansfeld  until  he  reached  his  fourteenth  year ;  thence  he 
went  to  Magdeburg ;  four  years  he  spent  at  Eisenach,  under 
the  tuition  of  a  teacher  of  whom  Melanchthon  testifies  that 
in  the  grammatical  branches,  the  very  ones  which  were  so 
largely  to  become  useful  to  Luther  as  a  translator,  lie  had  no 
superior.  Here  he  finished  his  school -days  proper  —  already 
as  a  boy,  by  his  great  proficiency,  giving  indications  of  extra- 
ordinary talents  and  industry.  Melanchthon  says  of  him  at 
this  era :  "As  he  had  great  genius,  and  a  strong  predispo- 
sition to  eloquence,  he  speedily  surpassed  the  other  youths  in 
the  fulness  and  richness  of  his  speech  and  of  his  writing,  alike 
in  prose  and  verse."  Even  as  a  boy,  he  was  already  marked 
out  as  a  translator. 

II.  Luther  received  a  thorough  collegiate  education.  In  1501 
he  repaired  to  the  college  at  Erfurt,  where  he  was  matricu- 
lated during  the  presidency  of  Truttvetter,  whom  he  loved 
and  venerated  as  a  man  and  a  teacher,  and  where  he  faithfully 
used  all  the  advantages  which  surrounded  him. 

II,  —  Bibliography  and  History. 

Mayer,  J.  F. :  Hist.  Vers.  Lutli.  1701. 

Kraft:  (1705-1734.) 

Zeltner:  Historie.   1727.     Bertram:  Giese :  Nachricht.   (1771.) 

Palm:  Historie  —  Gotze.  1772. 

"       De  Codicibus.  1735. 
Gozen's  :    Sammlung.  1777.     Vergleichung  der  Uebersetz.  v.  Luther,  von 

1517_b.  1545.  Erst.  St.  1777;  2d,  1779.    Neue  Entdeckungen,  1777. 
Panzer:  Entwurf.  1791. 
G(ETz:  Ueberblicke.  1824. 
Schott:  Geschichte.  1835.     Bindseil.  (1841.) 
Reuss:  Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schriften.  N.  T.   1860. 
Fritzsche  :  Bibeliibersetzungen  Deutsch.   1855.   (in  Herzog's    Real    Enc. 

iii.  337.) 
Popular  Histories:   Kuster  (1824)  ;  Weideman  (1834) ;  K.Mann  (1834); 

Krafft,  C.  W    (1835.) 


90  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

III.  Luther  was  a  devoted  student  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek. 
In  1505,  after  his  entrance  into  the  cloister,  Lnther  devoted 
himself,  with  that  earnestness  which  marked  all  he  did,  to  the 
study  of  Hebrew  and  Greek.     He  had  skilful  teachers  in  both 
languages.     As  professor  and  preacher  in  Wittenberg,  he  con- 
tinued both   studies  with  great  ardor.     In  Hebrew,  Luther 
regarded  the  illustrious  Reuchlin,  the  Gesenius  of  that  day,  as 
his  teacher,  compensating  for  the  want  of  his  oral  instruction 
by  a  thorough  use  of  his  writings.     But  Luther  was  not  of 
the  race  of  sciolists  who  think  that,  because  books  can  do 
much,  they  can  do  everything.     lie  knew  the  value  of  the 
living  teacher.     To  obtain  a  more  thorough  mastery  of  Hebrew, 
he  availed  himself  of  the  instruction  of  his  learned  colleague, 
Aurogallus,  the  Professor  of  the  Oriental  languages  at  Witten- 
berg.    When  he  was  at  Rome,  in  1510,  he  took  lessons  in  He- 
brew from  the  erudite  Rabbin  Elias  Levita.    Luther  was  master 
of  the  Hebrew  according  to  the  standard  of  his  time,  as  his 
contemporaries,  and  learned  men  of  a  later  date,  among  them 
Scaliger,  have  acknowledged.     "If  Luther,"  says  Fritzsche,* 
"  was  not  the  greatest  philologist  of  his  time,  he  was  yet  suf- 
ficiently learned  to  see  for  himself,  and  to  be  able  to  form  an 
independent  judgment.     What  he  lacked  in  philological  pro- 
fundity was  compensated  for,  in  part,  by  his  eminent  exegetical 
feeling,  and  by  the  fact  that  he  had  lived  himself  completely 
into  the  spirit  of  the  Bible."     Luther's  first  master  in  Greek 
was  Erasmus,  through  his  writings ;  his  preceptor,  both  by 
the  book  and  the  lip,  was  Melanchthon.      These  were  the 
greatest  Greek  scholars   of  the  age.     Luther  happily  styles 
Melanchthon,  "  most  Grecian." 

IV.  With  genius,  the  internal  mental  requisite,  and  learn- 
ing, the  means  by  which  that  genius  could  alone  be  brought 
to  bear  on  the  work  of  translation,  Luther  united  ^:»2e(y.  His 
soul  was  in  afiinity  with  the  spirit  of  the  Bible.  He  was  a 
regenerate  man.  A  De  Wette  may  produce  a  translation 
which  the  man  of  taste  admires,  but  he  cannot  translate  for 
the  people.  We  would  not  give  a  poem  to  a  mathematician 
for  translation,  whatever  might  be  his  genius ;  still  less  would 

*  Ilerzog's  Real   Encyc,  iii.  340. 


NEW  TESTAMENT— PROTESTANT   VERSION       91 

we  give  the  words  of  the  Spirit  to  the  hand  of  a  translator 
who  had  not  the  "  mind  of  the  Spirit."  Luther,  the  man  of 
faith,  of  fervent  prayer,  the  man  who  was  as  lowly  toward 
God  as  he  was  inflexible  toward  men — Luther  was  called  to 
that  work  of  translation  in  which  generations  of  the  past 
have  found  a  guide  to  heaven,  and  for  which  millions  of  our 
race,  in  generations  yet  to  come,  will  rise  up  and  pronounce 
him  blessed. 

Y.  All  these  gifts  and  graces  as  a  translator  found  their 
channel  in  his  matchless  German,  In  this  he  stood  supreme. 
The  most  German  of  Germans,  towering  above  the  great,  yet 
absolutely  one  of  the  people,  he  possessed  such  a  mastery  of 
the  tongue,  such  a  comprehension  of  its  power,  such  an  ability 
to  make  it  plastic  for  every  end  of  language,  as  belonged  to  no 
other  man  of  his  time  —  to  no  other  man  since.  His  German 
style  is  the  model  of  the  scholar,  and  the  idol  of  the  people. 

The  plan  of  a  great  human  life  is  not  something  which  the 
man  makes  —  it  is  something  which  makes  the  man.  The 
wide  and  full-formed  plans  which  men  make  before  ^he  first  Prot- 
thev  beo-in  to  act,  are  always  failures.    The  achieve-  «^stant  version  of 

*'        ■  ^  "^  the    New  Testa* 

ments  of  the  great  masters  in  the  moral  revolutions  ment.  itseariy 
of  our  race  have  invariably,  at  first,  had  the  sem-  ''''^''''y- 
blance  of  something  fragmentary.  The  men  themselves  were 
not  conscious  of  what  their  own  work  tended  to.  Could  they 
have  seen  the  full  meaning  of  their  own  first  acts,  they  would 
have  shrunk  back  in  dismay,  pronouncing  impossible  those 
very  things  with  the  glorious  consummation  of  which  their 
names  are  now  linked  forever.  So  was  it  with  Luther  in  the 
work  of  the  Reformation.  The  plan  of  it  was  not  in  his  mind 
when  he  began  it.  That  plan  in  its  vastness,  difiaculties,  and 
perils  would  have  appalled  him,  had  it  been  brought  clearly 
before  him.  So  was  it  also  in  regard  to  his  greatest  Reform- 
atory labor  —  the  translation  of  the  Bible.  At  a  period  when 
he  would  have  utterly  denied  his  power  to  produce  that  yery 
translation  which  the  genius  and  learning  of  more  than  three 
centuries  have  failed  to  displace,  he  was  actually  unconsciously 
taking  the  first  step  toward  its  preparation.  Like  all  great 
fabrics,  Luther's  translation  was  a  growth. 


92  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

The  memorable  year  1517,  the  year  of  the  Theses,  was  also 
the  year  of  Luther's  first  translation  of  part  of  the  Holy  Scrip 
tures.  It  is  earlier,  however,  than  the  Theses,  or  the  contro- 
versy with  Tetzel,  and  yet  its  very  preface  implies  the  Prot- 
estant doctrine  of  the  right  of  the  illumined  private  judg- 
ment of  Christians.  It  embraced  only  the  Seven  Penitential 
Psalms,  (vi.,  xxxii.,  xxxviii.,  li.,  cii.,  cxxx.,  cxliii.)  He  used 
in  its  preparation  the  Latin  translation  of  Jerome,  and  another 
by  Rcuchlin,  which  had  appeared  at  Tlibingen  in  1512.  In 
the  Annotations,  however,  he  frequently  refers  to  the  Hebrew. 

Between  1518  and  the  appearance  of  his  ^N'ew  Testament 
complete,  in  1522,  Luther  translated  eleven  different  portions 
of  the  Bible.  In  1518  appeared  two  editions  of  a  translation 
and  exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  The  first  edition  was 
issued  without  Luther's  consent,  by  Schneider,  one  of  his 
pupils.  Luther  himself  published  the  second  edition,  which 
deviates  very  much  from  the  other.  It  appeared  with  this 
title:  "Exposition,  in  German,  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  for  the 
simple  Laity,  by  Dr.  Martin  Luther,  Augustinian  Monk,  of 
Wittenberg.  N'ot  for  the  learned."  The  same  year  he  trans- 
lated the  ex.  Psalm.  In  1519  appeared  the  Gospel  for  the 
Festival  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  the  Prayer  of  Manas- 
seh.  In  1520  he  published  his  first  Catechetical  work,  em- 
bracing the  Ten  Commandments. 

In  1521,  Luther  was  seized,  on  his  way  from  Worms  to 
Wittenberg,  and  carried  to  the  castle  of  the  Wartburg,  where 
he  remained  from  May  4th,  1521,  to  March  6th  of  the  fol- 
lowing year.  These  months  of  calm,  and  of  meditation,  led 
to  the  maturing  of  his  plans  for  the  promotion  of  the  Reform- 
ation, and  among  them,  of  the  most  important  of  the  whole, 
the  giving  to  the  people  the  Word  of  God  in  their  own  tongue. 
Before  his  final  leaving  the  Wartburg,  Luther,  in  disguise, 
made  his  way  to  Wittenberg,  and  spent  several  days  there, 
known  only  to  a  very  few  of  his  most  trusted  friends.  Daring 
that  mysterious  and  romantic  visit,  they  may  have  urged  upon 
him  personally  this  very  work  of  translation.  He  had  been 
urged  to  this  work,  indeed,  before.  "  Melanchthon,"  says  he, 
"constrained  me  to  tran&late  the  New  Testament."     Various 


FIRST   DRAFT.  93 

fragments  of  translation  wore  published  during  the  earlier 
part  of  Luther's  sojourn  in  his  Patmos,  but  not  until  his 
return  from  Wittenberg  did  he  begin  the  first  grand  portion 
of  his  translation  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 

Luther  translated  the  New  Testament  in  the  first  draft  in  about 
three  months.  It  sounds  incredible,  but  the  evidence  places  it 
beyond  all  doubt.  lie  was  only  ten  months  at  the  Wartburo- ; 
during  this  period  he  wrote  many  other  things ;  did  a  good  deal 
of  work  on  his  Postils,  and  lost  a  great  deal  of  time  by 
sickness,  and  in  other  ways,  and  did  not  commence  his 
ISTew  Testament  until  his  sojourn  was  more  than 
half  over,  i^ever  did  one  of  our  race  work  with 
the  ardor  with  which  Luther  wrought  when  his  whole  soul 
was  engaged,  and  never,  probably,  was  that  great  soul  so 
engaged,  so  fired,  so  charmed  with  its  occupation,  as  in  this 
very  work  of  translating  the  Kew  Testament.  The  absurd 
idea  that  Luther  was  assisted  in  this  first  work  by  Melanch- 
thon,  Cruciger,  Amsdorf,  and  others,  has  arisen  from  confound- 
ing with  this  a  difterent  work  at  a  difterent  period.  In  this, 
he  was  alone,  far  from  the  aid,  far  from  the  co-operating  sym- 
pathy of  a  single  friend. 

He  did  not  translate  from  the  Vulgate,  though  he  used  that 
ancient  and  important  translation  with  sound  judgment.  In 
his  earlier  efibrts  as  a  translator  we  see  more  of  its  influence 
than  at  a  later  period.  This  influence  was  partly,  no  doubt, 
unconscious.  His  thorough  familiarity  with  the  Vulgate 
would  shape  his  translation  to  some  extent,  even  when  he  was 
not  thinking  of  it.  But  the  Vulgate  was  of  right 
the  most  important  aid,  next  to  the  sacred  text  ^'"^  ^'"'-''^^• 
itself.  Consequently,  though  Luther  grew  less  and  less  depend- 
ent upon  it,  and  saw  more  and  more  its  defects,  he  never  ceased 
to  value  it.  He  well  knew,  too,  that  many  of  the  most  serious 
faults  of  the  received  form  of  the  Vulgate  were  the  results  of 
the  corrupted  text,  the  state  of  which  before  the  critical  labors 
which  ran  through  the  sixteenth  century,  was  ahnost  chaotic. 
We  will  give  a  few  illustrations  of  the  fact  that  in  certain  cases 
Luther  followed  the  Vulgate,  in  his  earliest  translation,  with- 
out  warrant  from  the  Greek  text.     We  will  distribute  our 


94  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

illustrations  under  these  heads:  I.  oi  Additions  ;  II.  oi  Omis- 
sions ;  III.  of  Renderings;  lY.  of  Readings^  in  which  Luther 
follows  the  Vulgate  when  the  Vulgate  does  not  represent  the 
Greek  text  —  or  at  least  that  text  to  which  alone  Luther  had 
access. 

I.  —  Additions  of  the  Vulgate  and  of  Luther  to  the  Eras- 
mian  Text.     (1516,  1519.) 
Mark  vi   2.  Were  astonished,  Luther  adds  :  Seiner  Lehre  : 
so  Coverdale :  at  his  learning. 
"     xvi.  9.  Luther  adds  :  Jesus. 

"     xii.  .).  Luther   adds :    AUe :    all    the  whole  world : 
Craniner. 
1  John  V.  12.  He  that  hath  the  Son,  Luther  adds:  Gottes 
—  of  God. 

XL  —  Omissions  of  the  Vulgate  and  Luther  from  the  Erasmian 
text.      These   are   few,   for   the    sins   of  the   Vulgate 
against  the  pure  text  are  most  frequently  those  of  addi- 
tion. 
Matt.  i.  18.  Omit:  Jesus. 
Matt.  V.  22.  Whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother,  omit : 

without  a  cause. 
Matt.  vi.  4,  Omit :  himself. 

III.  —  Renderings  in  which  the  Vulgate  and  Luther  depart 
from  the  Greek  text. 

Matt.  x.  42.  Little  ones,  Luther  renders  :  one  of  the  least. 
So  Coverdale. 

Mark  xv.  4,  Behold  how  many  things  they  witness 
against  thee,  Luther  renders :  Wie  hart  sie 
dich  verklagen.  Coverdale:  How  sore  they 
lay  to  thy  charge. 

1  Cor.  XV.  44.  There  is  a  natural  body,  and  there  is  a 
spiritual  body,  Luther  renders ;  Hat  man  ein 
natiirlichen  Leib,  -so  hat  man  auch  einen 
geistlichen  Leib.  Coverdale:  If  there  be  a 
natural  body,  there  is  a  spiritual  body  also. 

1  Thess.  i.  7.  Renders :  an  example :  Vulg. :  ensample. 


FIRST  DRAFT.  95 

IV.  —  Readings  in  which  Luther  follows  the  Vulgate. 
Matt.  iii.  8.  For:  fruits,  Luther  reads:  fruit. 
Matt.  X.  25.  For:  Beelzeboul,  reads:  Beelzebub. 
John  xi.  54.  For  :  Ephraim,  reads :  Ephrem. 
Acts  ix.  35.  For :  Saron,  reads :  Sarona. 
Acts  xiii.  6.  For:  Bar  Jesus,  reads:  Bar  Jehu. 
Eph.  iii.  3.  For :  he  made  known, reads:  was  made  known. 
Eph.  V.  22.  For :  AVives  submit  yourselves,  reads  :  Let  the 

wives  be  subject  to. 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  For:  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  reads: 
Which  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  (in  all  the 
early  editions). 
Heb.  iv.  1.  For:  any  of  you,  reads:  any  of  us.     So  Tyn- 

dale  and  Coverdale. 
Heb.   ix.    14.    For :    your   consciences,   reads :    our   con- 
sciences. 
Rev.  xiv.  13.   For:  I  heard  the  voice,  reads:   the  voice 
which  I  heard. 
A  number  of  these  adhesions  to  the  Vulgate  are  to  be  traced 
to  his  judgment  that  it  here  represented  a  purer  text  than 
that  of  Erasmus.^     Luther  used  the  Basle  Edition  of  1509. 

To  have  rendered  even  the  Vulgate  into  the  noble  German 
which  Luther  used  would  have  been  a  great  task.  The  very 
defects  of  the  old  German  versions  from  the  Vulgate  which 
did  not  prevent  their  wide  circulation,  is  a  pathetic  proof  of 
the  hungering  of  the  people  for  the  bread  of  life.  But  it  was 
characteristic  of  Luther  s  originality,  vigor,  and  clearness  of 
perception,  that  he  at  once  saw  —  what  now  seems  so  obvious, 
but  which  had  not  been  seen  for  ages  —  that  to  give  the  people 
what  they  needed,  required  more  than  a  translation  of  a  trans- 
lation. If  we  remember  that  in  our  own  day  the  general  feel- 
ing is,  that  the  new  translations  to  be  prepared  for  the  Bible 
Society  should  be  conformed  to  our  English  version,  and  not 
independent  versions  from  the  original,  we  have  before  us  a 
fact  which  may  help  us,  though  very  imperfectly,  to  realize 
how  daring  it  seemed,  in  Luther's  time,  to  prepare  a  trans- 

*  Palm,  De  Codicibus  :   quibus  Lutherus  usus  est.      Hamburg,1735. 
Palm,   Historic.  Halle,  1772,  p,  245. 


96  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

lation  for  the  people  from  the  original,  involving,  as  it  did,  the 
idea  that  the  Yulgate,  embalmed  as  it  was  in  the  reverence  of 
ages,  was  not  in  all  respects  a  pure  representation  of  the  Word 
of  God.  When  Luther's  translation  appeared,  there  was  no 
point  which  the  Romanists  made  with  more  frequency,  vio- 
lence, and  effectiveness,  than  that  it  ignored  the  Vulgate ; 
though  the  reason  for  which  the  Yulgate  was  ignored  was 
that  it  departed  from  the  Greek. 

There  is  no  decisive  reason  for  thinking,  that  Luther  used 
any  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  text.  The  Greek  texts  which 
had  been  published,  or  at  least  printed,  when  Luther  was 
engaged  in  his  translation  of  the  Kew  Testament,  were : 

1.  The  Compliitensian,  folio,  printed  1514 ;  not  published 
till  1523.     Though  doubts  have  been  expressed  as  to  Luther's 

having  used  the  Compliitensian,  to  which  some 
Greek  texts     ^qt^qq  jg  myeu  bv  his  uowhcrc  citino*  it.  vet   Me- 

us.d  by  Luther.  »  »/  i  •  i        ^t-'     "^     rn 

lanchthon,  his  great  co-worker  in  the  ^^ew  lesta- 
ment,  cites  it  during  Luther's  lifetime.  The  copy  sent  to  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  (six  hundred  were  printed  in  all)  was  placed 
in  the  library  at  Wittenberg,  whence  it  was  removed,  two 
years  after  Luther's  death,  to  Jena.  His  not  citing  it  is  no 
evidence  over  against  the  irresistible  presumption  of  the  case ; 
and  Krell  (1664)  asserts  positively  that  Luther  was  familiar 
with  the  Complutensian.* 

2.  The  first  Erasmus,  1516,  folio. 

3.  The  Aldine,  1518,  folio ;  follows  for  the  most  part  the 
first  Erasmus,  even  in  its  blunders,  yet  has  some  peculiarities 
worthy  of  note,  as  in  James  iv.  6.  The  Septuagint,  in  this 
edition,  w^as  used  by  Luther. 

4.  The  second  Erasmus,  1519,  folio. 

5.  The  Gerbelius,  based  on  the  second  Erasmus  and  the 
Aldine,  1521,  4to. 

6.  The  third  Erasmus,  1522,  folio. 

It  is  evident  that  Luther's  choice  was  confined  at  first  to 
the  Editions  2-5.  The  Complutensian  and  Erasmus  3  appeared 
too  late  for  his  earliest  IS'ew  Testament  translation. 

We  might  illustrate  Luther's  adherence  to  the  Erasmian 

*  Ilopf,  Wiinligung.  45. 


GREEK    TEXTS    USED    BY   LUTHER,  97 

Greek  text  over  against  the  Vulgate :  I.  In  his  additions  from 
the  Greek  of  what  the  Vulgate  omits.  II.  In  his  omissions, 
following  the  Greek,  of  what  the  Vulgate  adds.  III.  Of  read- 
ings in  which  he  does  the  same.  IV.  Of  renderings  in  which 
he  forsakes  the  Vulgate  for  the  Greek.  The  last  head  we 
defer  for  the  present. 

I.  —  Additions  from  the  Greek  where  the  Vulgate  omits. 
Matt.  ii.  18.  adds :  lamentation.     Tyndale  :  mourning. 
"       vi.  4,  6,  18.  adds:  openly. 

"       vi.  13.  adds-.    For  thine  is  the  kingdom  and  the 
power  and  the  glory  forever.     So  Coverdale. 
Tyndale  omits. 
Matt.  vi.  14.  adds :  their  trespasses. 
"      vi.  25.  adds :  or  what  ye  shall  drink. 
"      vi.  32.  adds:  heavenly. 
Mark  vi.  11.  adds :  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable city. 

II.  —  Omissions,  following  the  Greek,  where  the  Vulgate  adds. 

Matt.  vi.  15.  omits :  your  trespasses. 
"      vi.  21.  ojnits :  he  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  the 

heavens. 
"      vii.  29.  omits:  their;  and,  Pharisees. 

Mark  xi.  26.  omits:  But  if  ye  do  not  .  .  .  trespasses. 

Luke  xvii.  36.  omits :  Two  men  shall  be  in  the  field  .  .  . 
and  the  other  left. 

John  xix.  38.  omits :  He  came  therefore  and  took  the  body 
of  Jesus. 

Jas.  iv.  6.  omits:  Wherefore  he  saith,  God  resisteth  .... 
the  humble.  All  the  editions  of  Erasmus 
and  Gerbelius  oynit  these  words,  but  the  Asu- 
lanus  (Aldine)  of  1518  has  them,  and  so  the 
Complutensian.     Tyndale  1.  Gov.  omit. 

1  John  V.  7.  omits :  There  are  three  that  bear  record  .  .  . 
and  the  Holy  Ghost.     This  text  Erasmus 
Ed.  1,  2,  Asulanus,  Gerbelius  omit.     Eras- 
mus: Ed.  3-5  has  it,  though  he  did  not  be- 
7 


98  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

lieve  it  to  be  genuine.  The  Complutensian 
has  it  with  slight  variations.  Luther  rejected 
it  on  critical  grounds,  and  it  did  not  appear 
in  any  of  his  Bibles  published  in  his  lifetime. 
The  Codex  Amiatinus  of  the  Yulgate  omits 
it.  Tyndale  has  it,  either  from  the  Yulgate 
or  Erasmus  3.  Tynd.  2.  and  Gov.  put  it  in 
brackets. 
Rev.  xii.  10.  omits:  the  accuser  of  our  brethren. 

"     xviii.  23.  omits :  and  the  light  of  a  candle  .  .  .  thee. 

"     xix.  9.  omits :  the  marriage. 

ID    —Of  Readings  in  which  he  follows  the  Greek. 

Matt.  V.  4,  5.  reads  in  order  of  Greek.     Yulgate  puts  5 
first. 
*'      V.  47.  reads :  publicans  ;  Yulgate  :  heathen. 
"      vi.  1.  reads :  alms  ;  Yulgate :  righteousness. 
"      vi.  5.  reads :  thou  pray  est ;  Yulgate  :  ye  pray. 
Acts  xiii.  33.  reads:  first  Psalm  ;  so  Tynd.,  Gov. ;  Yulgate 

reads :  second  Psalm. 
Rom.  XV.  2.  reads :  Every  one  of  us ;  Yulgate :  of  you. 
Rev.  ii.  13.  irads:  in  my  days;  Yulgate:  in  those  days. 
"     V.  12.  reads:  riches  and  wisdom;  Yulgate:  divinity 
and  wisdom. 

The  most  important  peculiarities  of  Luther's  first  version,  as 
we  see  by  this  minute  examination,  are  solved  at  once  by  a 
comparison  of  it  with  the  text  of  Erasmus.  The  diff'erences 
in  the  four  editions  —  two  of  them  reprints  of  Erasmus — are 
not,  for  the  most  part,  important ;  2  and  3  may  be  considered 
as  in  the  main  one  text,  and  3  and  4  another.  A  minute 
examination  seems  to  indicate  that  Luther  had  them  all,  and 
used  them  all;  but  the  second  Erasmus  seems,  beyond  all 
doubt,  to  have  been  his  chief  text,  though  the  first  Erasmus, 
and  the  Gerbelius  have  both  been  urged  by  scholars  for  the 
post  of  honor. 

Of  the  Aldine  edition  of  Erasmus,  1518,  there  is  a  copy,  in 
fine  condition,  in  the  Gity  Library  of   Philadelphia.      The 


ERASMUS. 


author  has  all  the  later  editions  mentioned,  except  the  first 
Erasmus  and  the  Complutensian,*  in  his  own  library.  The 
admirable  edition  of  the  New  Testament  by  Yan  Ess  f  gives 
all  the  various  readings  of  Erasmus  and  the  Complutensian,  in 
the  best  form  for  comparison  with  each  other  and  the  Vulgate. 
Mill,  and  Wetstein,  and  Bengel  also,  give  these  various  read- 
ings, but  not  in  so  convenient  a  shape.  The  Complutensian 
readings  are  presented  very  fully  also  in  Scrivener's  Plain  In- 
troduction to  the  Criticism  of  the  ]^ew  Testament,  (Cam- 
bridge, 1861,)  pp.  349-358.  But  the  most  desirable  modern 
edition  for  the  collation  of  the  Complutensian  text  is  that  of 
Gratz,  'E.  T.  Textum  Greecum  ad  exemplar  Complutense,  ed. 
iTova  Mogunt.,  1827,  2  vols.  8vo. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  present  a  few  illustrations  of  the 
<^ariations  between  the  Complutensian  (1514)  and  the  first 
Erasmus  (1517),  comparing  both  with  Luther  and  our  Author- 
ized Version. 


Complutensian, 

First  Erasmus, 

Luther,  1522. 

Auth.  Engl., 

1514. 

1516. 

1611. 

I. 

Matt.  i. 

14 

Acheim 

Achen 

Achin. 

Achim 

II. 

'<     ii. 

6 

For 

omits 

For  (Denn) 

for 

III. 

''     ii. 

6 

Shall  come 

shall  come  to  me 

sol  mir  kom- 

men 

they  found 

shall  come 

IV. 

'«     ii. 

11 

they  saw 

they  found 

they  saw 

V. 

*«  iii. 

8 

fruit 

fruits 

fruit 

fruits 

VI. 

'«    ii. 

11 

the  Holy  Ghost 

the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  fire 

m.  d.  h.  g.  u. 
mit  feur 

w.  t.  h.  G.  and 
with  fire. 

VII. 

»   iv. 

15 

land  of  N. 

Nepthalim 

Nepthalim 

land  of  Nep- 
thali 
From  that 

VIII. 

(( 

17 

From  that 

and  from  that 

From  that 

IX. 

(( 

18 

he  walking 

Jesus  walking 

Jesus  walking 

Jesus  walking 

X. 

*'       V. 

12 

Your  reward 

Our  reward 

Your  reward 

your  reward 

XI. 

(( 

27 

It  was  said 

was  said  by  (or 
to)  them  of  old 
time 

said  to  (zu) 
them  of  old 
time. 

said  by  (or  toj 
them     of    old 
time 

^11. 

« 

47 

friends 

brethren 

Brlidern 

brethren 

In  these  twelve  examples,  Luther  agrees  with  the  Complu- 
tensian in  four  cases ;  the  Authorized  Version  agrees  in  seven. 
Erasmus  retained  in  all  his  editions  his  readings  Fos.  1,  3,  4, 

*  The  writer  has  examined  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  in  the  library  of  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  and  the  New  Testament,  formerly  the  prop- 
erty of  Judge  Jones,  of  Philadelphia,  now  in  the  choice  collection  of  Professor 
Charles  Short,  of  New  York. 

t  Tubingen,  1827. 


100 


CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 


5,  6,  7,  9,  11,  12.     He  coincides  in  editions  2,  3,  4,  5  with  the 
Compliitensian  in  [N'os.  2,  8,  10. 

We  will  now  illustrate  the  different  readings  of  the  five  edi- 
tions of  Erasmus : 


Erasmus  1, 

Erasmus  2, 

Erasmus  3, 

Erasmus  4, 

Erasmus  5, 

Luther,  1522. 

1516. 

1519. 

1522. 

1527. 

1535. 

I. 

Matt.  vi.  14 

our 

our 

our 

your 

your 

Your,  as  4,  5 

II. 

"    vi.24 

Marnon 

Mamon 

Mammon 

Mammon 

Mammon 

Mammon,  as  3, 

4,5 
You,  as  3,  4,  5 

III. 

"    Ai.  26 

we 

we 

you 

you 

you 

IV. 

"  viii.25 

you 

you 

us 

us 

US 

us,  as  2,  3,  4,  5 

V. 

"     X.     8 

raise  the  dead, 
cleanse  lepers 

Cleanse    le- 
pers, raise 
the  dead 

as  2 

as  2 

as  2 

Cleanse  the  le- 
peres,   raise    the 
dead,  as  2,  3,  4,  5 

VI. 

"  xiii.   8 

of the  Sabbath 

oftheS.  a?so 

as  2 

as  2 

as  2 

as  2,  3,  4,  5 

VII. 

"  xiii.  27 

the  tares 

tares 

the  tares 

the  tares 

the  tares 

as  1,  3,  4,  5 

us 

us 

you 

you 

us 

us,  as  1,  2,  5 

VIII. 

"  xiii.  56 

envies 

Murders, 

as  2 

as  2 

as  2 

as  2,  3,  4,  5 

IX. 

"    XV.  19 

(phthnol) 

(phonoi) 

X. 

"    XV.  36 

And  having 
given  thanks 

Om:  and 

as2 

as  2 

as  2 

as  2,  3,  4,  5 

This  table  illustrates  the  lack  of  accuracy  in  the  printing  of 
Erasmus — shows  that  Luther  was  not  misled  by  typographical 
errors,  and  that  he  used  the  later  editions  in  each  case.  In 
none  of  these  instances  does  he  follow  a  readins;  for  which 
there  is  no  authority  but  the  first  of  Erasmus. 

The  order  of  the  books  in  Luther's  ISTew  Testament  varied 
somewhat  from  that  of  the  Yulgate  and  Erasmus ;  which  is 
the  one  retained  in  our  Authorized  Version.  Luther  places  Peter 
and  John  immediately  after  Paul's  Epistles.  Then  come  Hebrews, 
James,  Jude,  and  Revelation.  He  based  his  arrangement  on  the 
relative  clearness  of  the  canonical  authority  of  the  books.  His 
order  is  followed  by  Tyndale  (152(3),  and  in  all  the  editions 
which  bear  the  name  of  Tyndale,  Matthews,  or  Rogers.  It  is 
also  the  order  in  Coverdale's  Bible.  This  is  one  proof,  among 
,    ,     a  eTcat  number,  of  the  lars^e  infiuence  of  Luther 

Order    of     the  <^  ^  o 

B.)oksoftheNew  upou  tliosc  vcrslous.  Tlic  "  Gi'cat  Bible"  of  1539, 
the  Cromwell  Bible,  frequently  called  the  Cranmer, 
restores  the  arrano^ement  of  the  Yulo;ate  —  and  in  this  is  fol- 
lowed  by  the  Genevan,  Bishops,  and  the  Authorized.  Luther 
bestowed  great  care  upon  the  division  of  the  text  into  para- 
graphs, and  as  a  result  of  this  there  are  some  changes  in  the 
division  into  chapters,  which  had  been  made  very  imperfectly  in 
the  Yulgate,  in  the  thirteenth  century.  No  German  Xew 
Testament  appeared  in  Luther's  lifetime  with  the  division  into 


It  EVI 810  N— PUBLICATION.  101 

verses.  Their  place,  nearly  to  the  close  of  the  century,  was 
partly  supplied  by  capital  letters,  dividing  the  page  at  regular 
intervals.  There  were  Introductions  to  the  I^ew  Testanient, 
and  to  some  of  the  books:  marginal  notes  and  parallel  passages. 

The  same  spirit  which  had  impelled  Luther  to  prepare  this 
translation  made  him  eager  to  have  it  as  speedily  as  possible 
in  the  hands  of  the  people.  This  desire,  no  less  than  the  neces- 
sity of  quelling  the  uproar  and  arresting  the  ruin  which  the 
fanaticism  of  Carlstadt  was  bringing  about,  led  to  his  flight 
from  his  prison,  and  his  final  return  to  Wittenberg, 
(March  14, 1522.)  Here,  in  the  house  of  Amsdorff, 
especially  with  the  counsel  and  aid  of  Alelanchthon,  he  revised 
his  translation  with  great  care.*  He  interested  in  the  work 
his  friend  Spalatin,  the  chaplain,  librarian,  and  private  secre- 
tary at  the  court ;  he  solicited  from  him  aid  in  suggesting  apt 
words,  "  not  words  of  the  court  or  camp,  but  simple  words ; 
for  this  book  wishes  to  be  luminous  in  simplicity."  He  ob- 
tained through  him  the  privilege  of  an  inspection  of  the  Elec- 
toral jewels,  that  he  might  more  accurately  render  the  names 
of  the  gems  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  Revelation.  They 
were  sent  to  Luther,  and  returned  by  him  through  Cranach, 
the  great  painter. 

After  a  thorough  revision,  Luther  put  his  ^ew  Testament 
to  press,  urging  on  the  work  of  printing  with  all  his  energies. 
Three  presses  were  kept  going,  from  which  were  thrown  ofi:* 
ten  thousand  sheets  dail3^  Luther  complained  of  the  slow- 
ness of  the  progress.  The  steam-presses  of  our  own  day  would 
hardly  have  worked  rapidly  enough  for  him.  The  first  edition 
embraced  probably  three  thousand  copies,  and  appeared  about 
September  21st,  1522.  So  ea2:erly  was  it  received, 
that  m  December  another  edition  came  forth.  It 
was  hailed  with  delight  wherever  the  German  tongue  was 
nsed,  and  within  three  months  of  its  appearance  an  edition 
w^as  issued  at  Basel  by  Petri.  It  woke  a  thrill  of  rapture 
everywhere  among  those  who  loved  the  Word  of  God.  Xone 
received  it  more  eagerly  than  the  pious  women  of  the  time. 
The  people  and  the  evangelical  part  of  the  pastors  vied  with 

*  March  30,  1522.     Omnia  nunc  cliniari  (to  polish)  cepimus,  rhilipjius  et  ego. 


102  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

each  other  in  the  enthusiasm  with  which  thej  greeted  it ; 
Lange,  the  Senior  at  Erfurt,  had  translated  several  of  the 
books  of  the  ^ew  Testament  into  German :  when  Luther's 
translation  came  into  his  hands,  he  at  once  used  and  cited  it 
in  his  preaching.  Lifted  by  his  noble  evangelical  spirit  above 
the  littleness  of  vanity,  he  was  the  first  to  give  its  true  position 
in  the  Church  to  the  work  which  forever  consigned  his  own  to 
oblivion. 

There  lie  at  our  hand,  as  we  write,  three  early  impressions 
of  these  first  editions.  One  is  a  folio,  dated  1523,  and  was 
printed  by  Hans  Schonsperger,  in  the  cit}^  of  Augsburg.  It 
was  fitting  that  in  that  imperial  city  should  early  appear  a 
work  from  which  s^Drang  the  great  Confession,  which  was  des- 
tined to  be  set  forth  in  its  halls  a  few  years  later.  The  second 
is  a  Basel  edition,  in  quarto,  of  1523,  with  its  pictures  richly 
colored.  The  third  was  printed  at  Strasburg,  in  1525,  by  John 
Knoblauch .  All  these  editions  have  engravings.  They  are  espe- 
cially rich  in  pictures  in  the  Book  of  Revelation  ;  and  there  the 
t.iiiy  inipixs-  ^rtists  havc  been  allowed  ample  room  for  the  play  of 
8i  "s.  their  imaginations.     The  discolored  pages,  the  an- 

tique type,  the  grotesque  cuts,  the  strange  devices  of  the  print- 
ers, tlie  binding  of  stamped  hogskin,  the  curious  clasps,  the 
arms  of  the  old  families  in  whose  libraries  they  once  stood, 
gilt  upon  the  sides  or  engraved  on  book-plates,  the  records  in 
writing  on  margin  and  fly-leaf,  made  by  men  of  difierent  gen- 
erations, nay,  a  kind  of  odor  of  the  past  —  all  these,  as  we 
handle  these  ancient  books,  carry  the  mind  back  to  days  long 
gone  —  to  sore  struggles,  whose  blessings  we  enjoy;  to  the 
seed-time  of  weeping,  whose  harvest-sheaves  we  bear  in  our 
bosom.  In  the  heart  of  those  times  there  comes  before  the 
vision  that  immortal  man  to  whom  the  world  owes  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  Word,  and  its  own  redemption  by  that  Word 
unbound.  "We  see  him  bending  over  his  work  in  the  Wart- 
burg.  There  are  times  when  the  text  beneath  his  eyes  fails 
to  reveal  to  him  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  ardor  of 
prayer  he  raises  them  to  the  Eternal  Source  of  all  illumination, 
and  lifts  them  not  in  vain. 

AVell  mnv  we  take  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  reverently  and 


LUTHER'S    VERSION.  103 

prayerfully,  most  of  all  because  it  was  God  who  gave  it  to  the 
Fathers.  Well  may  we  lift  it  tenderly  and  gratefully  for  the 
sake  of  martyrs  and  confessors,  who  toiled  and  died  that  it 
might  be  transmitted  to  us  and  to  all  time. 

Amid  the  enthusiasm  with  which  Luther's  translation  ojf 
the  IS'ew  Testament  was  received,  there  were,  of 

Luther's        ver- 

course,  not  wanting  voices  whose  tones  were  by  sion.  Enriy  ene- 
no  means  in  unison  with  the  sreneral  laudation,   ^nes^  nemy  vm. 

"-J  and  George. 

One  of  these  growls  of  disapproval  came  from  a 
very  august  source  —  from 'a  gentleman  portly  in  form,  and 
charged  by  some  who  professed  to  know  him  well,  with  exhib- 
iting a  self-will  of  the  largest  kind.  He  is  memorable  in  his- 
tory for  winning  the  title  of  "Defender  of  the  Faith" — a 
faith  which  he  afterward  had  his  people  burned  to  death  for 
receiving  in  a  part  or  so  which  interfered  with  his  later  dis- 
coveries. Bitterly  disappointed,  as  he  had  been,  in  his  matri- 
monial anticipations,  he  yet  exhibited  evidences  of  what  Dr. 
Johnson  said  was  illustrated  in  second  marrias-es :  "  The  tri- 
umpli  of  hope  over  experience."  He  had  entered  into  contro- 
versy with  Luther,  and  had  discovered  that  there  was  one 
man,  at  least,  who  was  bold  enough  to  "  answer  a  fool  accord- 
ing to  his  folly,"  although  that  fool  might  wear  a  crown.  l!Tot 
having  it  in  his  power  to  relieve  his  feelings  in  regard  to  Lu- 
ther, in  his  favorite  mode,  which  would  have  been  to  have  had 
his  head  taken  oiF,  he  relieved  himself,  as  he  best  could,  by 
venting  his  wrath  in  savage  words,  and  in  trying  to  rouse  the 
enmity  of  others  against  the  man  he  detested  and  feared. 
Henry  the  Eighth  wrote,  in  January,  1523,  to  the  Elector  Fred- 
erick and  to  the  Dukes  John  and  George,  of  Saxony,  as  follows: 
"  As  I  was  about  to  seal  this  letter,  I  recollected  that  Luther, 
in  the  silly  book  which  he  put  forth  against  me,  excused  him- 
self from  giving  an  answer  on  certain  points,  on  the  ground, 
that  the  work  of  translating  the  Bible  left  him  no  time  for  it. 
I  thought  it  well,  therefore,  to  solicit  your  attention  to  this 
matter,  so  that  he  be  not  allowed  to  go  on  with  this  thing.  I 
do  not  think  it  right,  in  general,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures 
should  be  read  in  the  living  tongues,  and  consider  it  specially 
perilous  to  read  it  in  a  translation  by  Luther.     Any  one  can 


104  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

foresee  how  unreliable  he  will  be  ;  he  will  corrupt  the  blessed 
Scriptures  by  his  false  interpretation,  so  that  the  common  reader 
will  believe  that  he  is  drawing  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  what 
that  accursed  man  has  derived  from  damnable  heretical  books." 
The  German  nobles,  to  whom  this  letter  was  addressed,  received 
it  in  very  different  ways.  Duke  George  replied,  that  he  had 
bought  up  all  the  copies  of  Luther's  translation  which  had 
found  their  way  into  his  dominion,  and  had  interdicted  the 
circulation  of  it.  The  Elector  Frederick  and  Duke  John,  in 
their  reply,  passed  over  this  point  with  significant  silence. 

The  mandate  of  Duke  George  spoke  with  special  bitterness 
of  the  pictures  in  Luther's  New  Testament,  pictures  which  it 
characterized  as  "  outrageous,  tending  to  throw  scorn  upon  the 
Pope's  holiness,  and  to  confirm  Luther's  doctrine."  Luther's 
comment,  which  he  bestowed  upon  the  Duke  himself,  was,  "  I 
am  not  to  be  frio-htened  to  death  with  a  bladder :  "  and  to 
inspire  some  of  his  own  courage  in  others,  he  wrote  his  treatise 
"Of  Civil  Authority  —  how  far  we,  owe  allegiance  to  it,"  in 
which  he  declares  that  rulers  who  suppress  the  Holy  Scriptures 
are  tyrants  —  murderers  of  Christ — -worthy  of  a  place  with 
Herod,  who  sought  the  life  of  the  infant  Saviour. 

Jerome  Emser  managed  to  get  himself  involved  in  the  amber 
The  counter-  ^^  Luthcr's  history ;  and  so  we  know  of  him.  After 
translation.  Em-  Dukc  Gcorgo  had  cutcred  on  his  crusade  against 
Luther's  ]N'ew  Testament,  especially  against  the 
pictures  in  it,  (and  in  this  latter  point,  we  confess,  something 
might  be  urged  for  the  duke,  in  an  artistic  point  of  view,)  he 
found  his  Peter  the  Hermit  in  a  Catholic  theologian,  a  native 
of  Ulni,  who  had  studied  at  Tiibingen  and  Basle.  He  had  been 
chaplain  of  Cardinal  Raymond  Gurk,  and  had  travelled  with 
him  through  Germany  and  Italy.  On  his  return,  he  obtained 
the  chair  of  Belles-Lettres  at  Erfurt.  Subsequently,  he  became 
secretary  and  orator  to  Duke  George.  He  was  originally  a 
friend  of  Luther,  but  his  friendship  was  not  permanent.  It 
gave  way  at  the  Leipzig  disputation,  in  1519,  and  he  transferred 
his  allegiance  to  Eck.  He  had  the  honor  of  being  the  first 
literary  antagonist  of  Luther's  version.      Duke  George,  the 

*  See  Goz,  Ueberblickc,  etc.,  p.  300. 


THE   COUNTER-TRANSLATION—EMSER.  105 

Bishop  of  Merseburg,  Prince  Adolphus  of  Anhait,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Meissen,  not  satisfied  with  legal  measures  of  sup- 
pression, called  in  Emser,  to  use  the  more  formidable  weapon, 
the  pen,  the  gigantic  power  of  which  Luther  was  then  exhib- 
iting. About  a  year  after  the  publication  of  the  first  edition 
of  Luther's  ^ew  Testament,  Emser  came  forth  with  his  con- 
futation of  it.  Its  title  stated  its  object,  which  was,  to  show 
"  On  what  ground,  and  for  what  reason,  Luther's  translation 
should  be  prohibited  to  the  common  people,"  and  he  claimed 
to  have  discovered  in  the  unfortunate  book  about  four  errors 
and  a  quarter,  more  or  less,  to  each  page,  some  "fourteen 
hundred  heresies  and  falsehoods,"  all  told.  Luther  did  not 
consider  the  work  w^orthy  of  a  reply  ;  but  Dr.  Regius  took  up 
its  defence,  and  confuted  Emser  in  the  robust  manner  which 
characterized  that  very  hearty  age.  It  seemed,  however,  as  if 
Emser  w^ere  about  to  illustrate  his  honesty  in  the  very  highest 
and  rarest  form  in  which  a  critic  can  commend  himself  to 
human  confidence ;  it  seemed  as  if  he  were  about  to  prepare  a 
book  of  the  same  general  kind  as  that  which  he  reviewed,  in 
which  he  could  be  tested  by  his  own  canons,  and  his  right  to 
be  severe  on  others  demonstrated  by  the  masterly  hand  with 
which  he  did  the  work  himself.  He  prepared  to  publish  a 
counter-translation.  He  had  the  two  qualities,  in  which  many 
translators  have  found  the  sole  proofs  of  their  vocation :  he 
could  not  write  the  language  into  which,  and  did  not  under- 
stand the  language  from  which,  he  was  to  translate.  But  his 
coolness  stood  him  in  better  stead  than  all  the  knowledge  be 
might  have  had  of  Greek  and  German.  With  little  trouble,  he 
produced  a  translation,  equal,  on  the  whole,  as  even  Luther 
himself  admitted,  to  Luther's  own,  and  literally  free  from  every 
objection  which  he  had  made  to  Luther's.  We  have  had  books 
on  the  Reformers,  before  the  Reformation  ;  on  Lutheranism, 
before  Luther,  and  such-like ;  and  another  might  be  written 
on  the  Yankees,  before  the  sailing  of  the  Mayflower.  Emser 
was  one  of  them. 

The  way  he  did  the  masterly  thing  we  have  mentioned  was 
this  :  He  adopted,  not  stole  (he  was  above  stealing)  — he  adopted 
Luther's  translation  bodily,  only  altering  him  where  he  had 


106  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

had  the  audacity  to  desert  the  Yulgate  for  the  originaL    These 
alterations  removed  nearly  all  the  fourteen  hundred  heresies 
at  a  sweep.     But  this  was  not  enough.     As  the  people  looked 
at  the  ''  outrageous  "  pictures,  not  merely  in  spite  of  Duke 
Georo-e's  prohibition,  but  with  that  zest  with  which  human 
nature  always  invests  forbidden  things,  it  was  determined  not 
merely  to  have  pictures,  but  the  happy  idea,  which  none  but  men 
nobly  careless  of  their  reputation  for  consistency  would  have 
harbored  for  a  moment,  was  fallen  on  —  the  plan  of  having 
the  very  same  ones.     Duke  George  paid  Cranach   forty  rix 
thalers  for  copies  of  them,  and  thus  secured  for  himself  the 
great  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  book  he  had  denounced  going 
forth  in  substance,  and  the  pictures  which  he  had  specially 
assaulted,  scattered  everywhere  by  his  own  ducal  authority. 
In  his  preface,  Emser  has  anticipated  a  style  of  thinking  which 
has  crept  into  our  Protestant  Churches.     He  says :  "  Let  the 
layman  only  attend  to  having  a  holy  life,  rather  than  trouble 
himself  about  the  Scriptures,  which  are  only  meant  for  the 
learned."     "We  have  had  a  good  deal  of  nonsense  ventilated  in 
our  churches  in  this  country  very  much  in  the  same  vein.     It 
means  about  this :  Be  pious,  be  in  earnest ;  never  mind  having 
ideas  or  doctrines  —  they  only  create  divisions;    be  zealous 
about  something,  whether  it  be  right  or  wrong.     You  may 
read  your  Bibles,  but  be  careful  not  to  form  an  opiuK/n  as  to 
their  meaning,  or  if  you  do,  attach  no  importance  to  it  if  any 
one    does   not  agree  with  you.      The  English    moralist  w^as 
thought  to  go  very  far  when  he  said,  "He  can't  be  wrong 
whose  life  is  in  the  right ; "  but  we  have  something  beyond 
him  and  Emser;  it  is  in  effect:  "He  can't  be  wrong  whose 
sensations  are  of  the  right  kind,"  and  who  gives  himself  up 
blindly  to  the  right  guidance,  and  takes  the  right  newspaper. 
Luther's   Xew    Testament,   with    Luther's    pictures,   thus 
adopted,  and  with  its  margin  crowded  with  Papistical  notes, 
which  were  meant,  as  far  as  possible,  to  furnish  the  antidote 
to  the  text,  went  forth  to  the  world.     The  preparation  was 
made  for  a  second  edition  of  it.     Duke  George  furnished  for 
it  a  preface,  in  which,  after  exposing  the  enormities  of  Martin 
Luther,  he   characterized   Emser  as  his  dearly  beloved,  the 


THE   COUNTER-TRANSLATION— EMSER.  107 

worthy  and  erudite,  and  gave  him  a  copyright  for  his  work, 
which  was  to  reach  over  the  next  two  years.  Poor  Emser. 
suftbcated  in  such  a  profusion  of  praises  and  privileges,  died 
before  he  could  enjoy  any  of  them.  His  vanity  was  very 
great.  One  special  token  of  it  was,  that  he  had  his  coat  of 
arms  engraved  for  the  hooks  he  published.  A  copy  of  his 
ITew  Testament  lies  before  us,  in  which  there  figures,  as  a  part 
of  his  crest,  that  goat's  head  from  which  Luther  —  whose 
sense  of  the  ludicrous  was  very  active  —  derived  his  ordinary 
sobriquet  for  Emser,  "  the  goat.'' 

In  his  Treatise  on  Translation,  Luther  thus  characterizes 
his  opponent  and  his  work :  "  We  have  seen  this  poor  dealer 
in  second-hand  clothes,  who  has  played  the  critic  with  my 
ISTew  Testament,  (I  shall  not  mention  his  name  again — he  has 
gone  to  his  Judge ;  and  every  one,  in  fact,  knows  what  he 
was,)  who  confesses  that  my  German  is  pure  and  good,  and 
who  knew  that  he  could  not  improve  it,  and  yet  wished  to 
bring  it  to  disgrace.  He  took  my  ]^ew  Testament,  almost 
word  for  word,  as  it  came  from  my  hand,  removed  my  preface, 
notes,  and  name  from  it,  added  his  name,  his  preface,  and  his 
notes  to  it,  and  thus  sold  my  Testament  under  his  own  name. 
If  any  man  doubts  my  word,  he  need  but  compare  the  two. 
Let  him  lay  mine  and  the  frippery  man's  side  by  side,  and  he 
will  see  who  is  the  translator  in  both.  If  any  man  prefers 
the  puddle  to  the  spring,  he  need  not  take  my  work ;  only,  if 
he  insist  on  beins:  io-uorant  himself,  let  him  allow  others  to 

^  CI  ' 

learn.  If  any  man  can  do  the  work  better  than  I  have  done, 
let  him  not  hide  his  talent  in  a  napkin  ;  let  him  come  forth, 
and  we  will  be  the  first  to  praise  him.  We  claim  no  infalli- 
bility. We  shall  be  thankful  to  those  who  point  out  our  mis- 
takes. Mistakes  we  have  no  doubt  made,  as  Jerome  often 
made  them  before  us." 

The  Kew  Testament,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  Scrip- 
tures—  yet  with  a  pre-eminence  among  them  —  continued  to 
be  the  object  of  Luther's  repeated  study  up  to  the  time  of  his 
death.  The  last  revision  of  the  translation  of  the  whole  Bible 
was  commenced  in  1541.  The  last  edition  printed  under  Lu- 
ther's own  eyes  appeared  in  1545.     In  February,   1546,  he 


10<S  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

died.*  The  Exegetical  Library  — not  to  speak  of  the  Fathers, 
and  of  other  indirect  sources  —  had  grown  around  him  as  he 
advanced.  The  Complutensian  Polyglott,  (1514-18,)  and  the 
editions  of  the  ^ew  Testament  Avhich  followed  its  text,  had 
Growth  of  x\.T.  hecome  accessible.  Erasmus  had  carried  his  Greek 
literature.  Kcw  Testamcuts,  with  their  translation  and  anno- 

tations, through  five  editions,  (1516-1535.)  The  fifth  remains 
to  this  hour  the  general  basis  of  the  received  text.  The  Aldine 
of  1518  had  been  reprinted  frequently.  Colinaeus  had  issued 
his  exquisitely  beautiful  f  edition,  (Paris,  1534,)  which  antici- 
pated many  of  the  readings  fixed  by  modern  criticism.  Robert 
Stephens,  the  royal  and  regal  printer,  issued  the  wonderfully 
accurate  :j:  0  mirificam  edition  of  1546,  the  text  based  upon  the 
Complutensian,  but  with  a  collation  of  sixteen  manuscripts, 
only  a  little  too  late  for  Luther  to  look  upon  it.  Great  eftbrts, 
and  not  unsuccessful,  had  been  made,  especially  by  Robert 
Stephens,  to  amend  the  current  and  greatly  corrupted  text  of 
the  Vulgate,  (1528-1540.)  Flacius  had  issued  his  Clavis,  the 
immortal  work  in  which  he  developed,  as  had  never  been  done 
before,  the  principles  of  Hermeneutics,  (1537.)  Pagninus  had 
done  the  same  work  from  a  relatively  free  Roman  Catholic 
position,  in  his  Introduction  to  Sacred  Letters,  (1536.)  The 
era  of  Luther  was  an  era  of  translations,  in  whose  results 
there  has  been  specific  improvement  in  detached  renderings, 
but  no  general  advance  whatever.  Germany  has  produced  no 
translation  of  the  IS'ew  Testament  equal,  as  a  whole,  to  Lu- 
ther's. Our  authorized  En  owlish  Version  is  but  a  revision  of 
Tyndale,  to  whom  it  owes  all  its  generic  excellencies  and 
beauties.  Among  the  Latin  translators,  Pagninus  (1528)  took 
a  high  rank,  by  his  minute  verbal  accuracy,  which  caused  his 
translation,  in  after  times,  to  be  used  as  an  interlinear.  A 
Latin  version  of  the  ]N"ew  Testament  appeared  in  1529,  with 
the  imprint  of  Wittenberg,  an  imprint  which  is  probably  spu- 
rious. It  has  been  believed,  by  many  scholars,  to  have  been 
the  work  of  Luther ;  others  attribute  it  to  Melanchthon ;  but 

*  See  Panzer's  Enlwurf,  pp.  370-37G. 

f  Perquam  nitida.     Le  Long.  (Boehmcr-Mascli.).  i,  206. 

J  Nitidissima-duodecim  sphalmata  duntaxat  accuruut.     Le  Long.,  i,  208. 


RIVAL   TRANSLATIONS,  109 

the  authorship  has  never  been  settled.  The  Zurich  trans- 
lators, Leo  Juda  and  his  associates,  had  issued  their  Latin 
version,  marked  by  great  merits,  not  verbal,  as  Pagninus',  but 
more  in  the  reproductive  manner  of  Luther,  shedding  light 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  text,  (1543.) 

Luther's  version  had  been  followed  by  a  number  of  rival  or 
antagonistic  translations  in  German,  all  of  them  freely  using 
him  —  many  of  them,  in  fact,  being  substantially  no  more  than 
a  re-issue  of  Luther  —  with  such  variations  as,  they  supposed, 
justified,  sometimes,  by  the  original,  but  yet  more  frequently 
by  the  Vulgate.  Ziirich  sent  forth  its  version,  (1527,)  ^.j^^,  t^ansia- 
Hetzer  and  other  fanatics  sent  forth  theirs.  The  t''^"^- 
Eomish  theologians  did  Luther  good  service  by  the  rigorous 
process,  to  which  they  subjected  his  translations  in  every  way. 
To  the  labors  of  Emser  (1527)  were  added  those  of  Dietenber- 
ger,  whose  Bible  appeared  in  1534,  (a  compound  of  Emser's 
Eecension  of  Luther's  I^ew  Testament,  of  Luther's  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  of  Leo  Juda's  Apocrypha,  with  corrections  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  from  the  Latin,  and  a  body  of  notes,)  and 
of  Eck,  1537.  The  gall  of  their  severity  was  certainly  sweet- 
ened by  the  unconscious  flattery  of  their  plagiarism  —  and 
whatever  may  have  been  the  spirit  in  which  objections  were 
made  to  his  translations,  Luther  weighed  them  carefully,  and 
wherever  they  had  force,  availed  himself  of  them. 

It  was  the  age  of  inspiration  to  the  translator,  and  the 
foundations  of  Biblical  Versions,  laid  by  its  builders,  will  stand 
while  the  world  stands.  Luther  had  many  and  great  competi- 
tors, in  this  era,  for  the  highest  glory  in  this  grand  work ;  but 
posterity  accords  him  the  rank  of  the  greatest  of  Biblical  trans- 
lators. "  His  Bible,"  says  Heuss,*  "was,  for  its  era,  a  miracle 
of  science.  Its  style  sounded  as  the  prophecy  of  a  golden  ao-e 
of  literature,  and  in  masculine  force,  and  in  the  unction  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  remains  a  yet  unapproached  model."  For  Lu- 
ther may  be  claimed,  that  in  the  great  edifice  of  the  people's 
knowledge  of  God's  AVord,  he  laid  the  noblest  stone,  the  cor- 
ner-stone, in  his  translation  of  the  IS^ew  Testament.  Future 
ages  may,  by  their  attrition,  wear  away  the  rougher  points  of 

*Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Scbrift,  N.  T  ,  g  47, 


110  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

its  surface,  but  the  massive  substance  will  abide,  the  stona 
itself  can  never  be  displaced. 

Up  to  this  hour,  Luther's  version  of  the  jN'ew  Testament  has 
been  the  object  of  minute  examination  by  friend  and  foe. 
Protestant  scholarship  has  subjected  it  to  a  far  severer  test 
Sources  of  de-  ^^^^  ^^^  cumitj  of  Romc  could  bring  to  bear  upon 
fects  in  Luther's  it.  That  particular  mistakes  and  defects  exist  in 
version.  ^^^  ^^^  wamicst  aduiircrs  will  admit,  but  the  evidence 

of  its  substantial  accuracy  and  of  its  matchless  general  beauty  is 
only  strengthened  by  time.  The  facts  which  bear  upon  its 
defects  may  be  summed  ^  up  in  the  statements  which  follow : 

I.  The  influence  of  the  Vulgate  was  necessarily  very  power- 
ful on  Luther.  It  was  felt  when  he  thought  not  of  it,  felt 
when  he  was  consciously  attempting  to  depart  from  it  where  it 
was  wrong.  Imagine  an  English  translator  preparing  now  a 
version  of  the  ISTew  Testament  —  and  think  how  the  old  version 
would  mould  it,  not  only  unconsciously,  but  in  the  very  face  of 
his  eflbrt  to  shake  oft'  its  influence. 

II.  Luther's  Greek  text  was  in  many  respects  difterent  from 
that  now  received,  as  the  received  is  dift'erent  from  the  texts 
preferred  by  the  great  textual  critics  of  our  century. 

III.  Lutlier's  words,  as  they  were  used  and  understood  in  his 
day,  were  an  accurate  rendering  of  the  original,  at  many  places, 
where  change  of  usage  now  fixes  on  them  a  different  sense. 
He  was  right,  but  time  has  altered  the  language.  Luther,  for 
example,  used  "  als,"  where  "  wie  "  (as)  would  now  be  employed ; 
''mogen"for  " vermogen,"  (to  be  able;)  "  etwa -"  for  " irgend 
einmal,"  (sometime  ;)  "schier  "  in  the  sense  of  "bald,"  (soon).t 

lY.  Many  of  the  points  of  objection  turn  on  pure  triviali- 
ties. 

V.  Many  of  the  passages  criticized  are  intrinsically  difiicult. 
Scholars  in  these  cases  are  not  always  agreed  that  Luther  was 
wrong,  or  yet  more  frequently  when  they  agree  so  far,  they  are 
not  agreed  as  to  what  is  to  be  substituted  for  his  rendering. 

*Hopf,  Wurdigung,  p.  214. 

■j-On  the  antiquated  words  in  Luther's  Bible,  see  Pischon,  Erklarung.,  Berl., 
1844;  and  Beck,  Worterbuch  z.  L.'s  BibelUbers.,  Sicgen.  u.  Wiesbaden,  1846; 
Hopf,  230-241. 


REVIEW  OF   LUTHER'S    TRANSLATION.  Ill 

Over  against  this,  the  felicity  in  his  choice  of  words,  the 
exquisite  naturahiess  and  clearness  in  his  structure  of  sentences, 
the  dignity,  force,  and  vivacity  of  his  expressions,  Re^.j^.^  ^f  ,„. 
his  affluence  of  phrase,  his  power  of  compression,  t^er'a translation. 
and  the  rhythmic  melody  of  ?iis  flow  of  style,  have  excited  an 
admiration  to  which  witness  has  heen  borne  from  the  beo:innino- 
by  friend  and  foe.  When  the  time  shall  come,  as  come  it  ,must, 
when  the  toils  and  discoveries  of  centuries  shall  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  Luther's  version,  in  changes  which  shall  be  recog- 
nized by  the  Church  as  just,  Luther's  grand  work  will  not 
only  remain  in  the  new  as  the  foundation,  but  will  abide  as  the 
essential  body  of  the  structure  itself.  The  German  nation  will 
never  have  a  Bible  for  which,  next  to  its  great  Source,  they 
can  cease  to  bless  Luther's  name. 


IV, 


CONSERVATIVE  CHURCH  OF  THE  REFORMATION  — 
THE  EVANGELICAL  PROTESTANT  (LUTHERAN) 
CHURCH.* 


FIRST  at  Wittenberg,  and  not  long  after  at  Zurich,  when, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  fuhiess  of 
God's  time  had  been  reached,  "there  blazed  up  a  fire  which 
had  Ions:  been  hidden  beneath  the  ashes.  It  burst  into  a 
mighty  flame.  The  farthest  horizon  of  N'orth- 
of  thl' purifitd  ern  Europe  grew  bright  as  with  some  glorious  dis- 
church  of  the     p|^^,  ^f  ^]^g  woudrous  elcctric  lio;ht,  the  reflection 

West.  -^       "  »        ' 

of  which  touched,  with  its  glory,  the  remote 
South  —  even  to  Italy  and  Spain.  The  truth,  which  had  been 
set  free,  moved  with  bold  steps  to  the  conquest  of  the  hearts 

*Goebel:  D.  relig.  Eigentbiim.  d.  Luth.  u.  ref,  Kirch.     1837. 
AuGUSTi:  Beitr.  z.  Gesch.  u.  Statist,  der  Ev.  Kirch.     1838. 
Heking:  Gesch.  d.  kirch.  Unionsb.     1838. 
RUDELBACH :  Ref.  Luth.  u.  Union.     1839. 
DoRNEu:  D.  Princip.  Un3.  Kirch.     1847. 
Wigger's:  Statistik.     2  vols.     1842. 

Ullmann:  Z.  Charakter.  d.  ref.  Kirch,  (in  Stud.  u.  Kritik.     1843.) 
Herzog:  D.  Einh.  u.  Eigent.  d.  beid.  Ev.  Schwesterk.     (Berl.l.  Zeitung,  1844.) 
NiTzscii:   Prakt.  Thcol.     1847. 

Schweizer:  Die  Glaubensl.  d.  Ev.  Ref.   Kirch.     Baur:  Princ.  d.  Ref.   Kirch. 
(Both  in  Zeller's  Jahrb.        1847.) 

Ebrard:  Dogmatik.     1851.     (2d  ed.   1861.) 

Schenkel:  D.  Princip.  d.  Protestantism.  1852.  Heppe.  (1850.    Stud.  u.  Krit.) 

ScHENKEL.   (1852:   Prinzip.      1855:   Unionsberuf.     1858:  Dogm.) 

112 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  PURIFIED    CHURCH.     113 

of  men.  The  princes  and  people  of  the  great  Germanic  races 
^  were  ripest  for  its  reception,  and  were  the  first  to  give  it  their 
full  conMdence.  Such  a  triumph  of  the  Gospel  had  not  been 
witnessed  since  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  The  corner-stone 
of  the  purified  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  waa  laid  anew  —  nay, 
it  also  seemed  as  it  were  the  very  top-stone  which  was  laid, 
while  the  regenerated  nations  shouted,  '  Grace,  grace ! '  unto 
it.  The  Gospel  won  its  second  grand  triumph  over  the  Law, 
and  a  second  time  Paul  withstood  Peter  to  the  face  because 
he  was  to  be  blamed.  In  place  of  a  bare,  hard  set  of  words, 
of  a  lifeless  and  mechanical  formalism,  there  reappeared  the 
idea,  the  spirit,  and  the  life,  in  the  whole  boundless  fulness 
and  divine  richness  in  which  they  had  appeared  in  the  prim- 
itive Church."*  To  comprehend  the  Reformation,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  trace  the  essential  idea  of  Christianity  through  its 
whole  history.  "  The  Greek  Church  saw  in  Christianity  the 
revelation  of  the  Logos,  as  the  Supreme  Divine  Peason. 
Christianity  was  to  it  the  true  philosophy.  The  Church  of  the 
Yf  est,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  laid  its  grand  stress  on 
the  Organism  of  the  Church.  There  dwelt  the  truth,  and 
there  the  life-controlling  power."  f  "  Catholicism  had  unfolded 
itself  into  a  vast  system  of  guarantees  of  Christianity ;  but 
the  thing  itself,  the  Christianity  they  were  to  guarantee,  was 
thrown  into  the  shade.     The  antithesis  between  spurious  and 

Gass  :  Ges.  d.  Prot.  Dogmat.     1853. 

Zeller:  Syst.  Zwinglis.  1853.  Wetzel:  (Ztschr.  Rudelb.  u.  Guerik.  1853.) 
Lucke:  Ueb.  d.  Geschicht.  ein.  richt.  Formulirung.  (Deutsch.  Zeitschr.  1853.) 
Muller:   1854-63:  Union. 

Hagenbach:  Z.  Beantw.  d.  F.  ub.  d.  Princ.  d.  Protest.     (Stud.  u.  Krit.  1854.) 
ScHNECKENBURGER :  Vergl.  Darstell.  d.  Luth.  u.  Ref.  Lehrbeg.     1855.    2  vols. 
Harnack:  Die  Luth.  Kirche  in  Licht.  d.  Geschicht.     1855. 
Rudelbach:  Die  Zeichen  d.  Zeit.  inn.  d.  Ev.-Luth.  Kirche.     1857. 
Stahl:  Die  Luth.  Kirche  u.  d.  Union.     2d  ed.  1861. 
Thomas:   Union  Luth.  Kirch,  u.  Stahl.     1860. 
Hundeshagen:  Beitrag.  z.  Kirch.  Verf.  etc.,  d.  Protest.     1864. 
Kahnis  :  Ueber  d.  Princip.  d.  Protestantis.     1865. 
LuTHARDT :   Handb.  d.  Dogmat.     2d  ed.   1866. 
Kahnis:  Luth.  Dogmat.     iii.  1868. 

Skiss:  Ecclesia  Lutherana:  A  Brief  Surv.  of  E.  L.  C.     1868. 
♦Wigger's  Statistik,  i.  92.  f  Luthardt,  Dogm.  \  11,  8, 

8 


114  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

real  Christianity  came  more  and  more  to  be  narrowed  to  the 
affirmation  or  denial  of  the  validity  of  these  guarantees  —  ^ 
until  it  became  the  error  most  fundamental  of  all  errors,  to 
assail  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  and  of  the  Church."  *  In 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  a  vast  system  of  outward  ordi- 
nances and  institutions  had  grown  up,  a  stupendous  body  of 
ritualistic  legalism  —  under  which  the  old  life  of  the  Gospel 
went  out,  or  became  dim,  in  the  heart  of  millions.  The  pow- 
ers that  ruled  the  Church  were  Moses,  without  the  moral  law, 
and  Levi,  without  his  wife.  The  grand  distinctive  character- 
istic of  the  Reformation  over  against  this,  the  characteristic 
which  conditioned  all  the  rest,  was  that  it  was  evangelical,  a 
restoration  of  the  glad  tidings  of  free  salvation  in  Jesus 
Christ  —  and  thus  it  2:ave  to  the  resjenerated  Church  its 
exalted  character  as  "Evangelical."  Both  the  tendencies  in 
the  Reformation  claimed  to  be  evangelical.  Both,  as  contrasted 
with  Rome,  rested  on  the  Gospel  —  Christ  alone  ;  grace  alone  ; 
justification  by  faith  alone ;  the  Bible  the  only  rule ;  but  in 
what  is  now  styled  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  Evangelical  prin- 
ciple, as  opposed  to  legalistic,  deterministic,  and  rationalistic 
tendencies,  came  to  a  more  consistent  development,  both  in 
doctrine  and  life. 

The  large  body  of  Christians  whose  historical  relation  to  the 
great  leader  of  the  Reformation  is  most  direct,  forms  a  Church, 
which,  in  the  language  of  a  writer  of  another  communion,t 
Evangelical  Pro-  "  ^^  ^^^  most  important,  tlic  grcatcst,  the  most 
testant  Church,  weighty  of  thc  cliurchcs  "  which  arose  in  that 
glorious  revolution.  It  has  been  her  misfor- 
tune to  be  known  to  English  readers,  not  through  her  own 
matchless  literature,  but  by  the  blunders  of  the  ignorant,  the 
libels  of  the  malicious,  and  the  distorted  statements  of  the 
partisan.  Yet  it  would  be  easy  to  present  a  vast  array  of 
evidence  in  her  favor,  which  should  be  taken,  not  from  the 
language  of  her  apologists,  but  exclusively  from  the  writings 
of  large-minded  and  intelligent  men  in  other  churches  ;  and 
if,  in  this  sketch  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  reader  should 
be  struck  with  the  fact  that  in  sustaining  our  position  by  cita- 

*  M;irtensen,  30. 

t  Goebel.     Die  rclig.  EigonthUmlichk.  d.  Luther. u.  reform.  Kirch.,  1837. 


DENOMINATIONAL    NAME.  115 

tions,  our  own  authors  seem  to  be  passed  by  in  some  cases 
where  they  might  appropriately  be  quoted,  he  will  account  for 
it  by  the  preference  which  we  naturally  feel  for  the  testimony 
of  those  who  can  be  suspected  of  no  partiality  for  the  object 
of  their  eulogy. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  in  denominational  history,  that,  as  an 
ordinary  rule,  the  more  large,  catholic,  and  churchly  the  title  of 
a  sect,  the  smaller,  narrower,  and  more  sectarian  is  Denomination- 
the  body  that  bears  it.  In  a  certain  respect,  the  "^^  ^^"'®- 
Roman  Catholic  Church  is  one  of  the  narrowest  of  sects,  first, 
because  of  the  bigotry  of  its  exclusiveness,  not  only  over  against 
the  Protestant  bodies,  but  also  toward  the  venerable  Church 
of  the  Orient,  with  which  it  is  in  such  large  doctrinal  and  ritual 
affinity,  and  with  which  it  was  once  so  closely  united,  but  in 
w^hich  there  has  been  produced  by  irritating  and  aggressive  acts 
a  more  than  Protestant  ardor  of  aversion  to  the  Papal  See  ;  and 
secondly,  because  of  its  building  upon  a  solitary  earthly  see  as  a 
foundation.  If  you  look  round  among  the  Protestant  bodies, 
you  will  find  such  glorious  titles  as  "Disciples  of  Christ," 
"  Church  of  God,"  "  Christians,"  w^orn  as  the  distinctive  cogno- 
men of  recent,  relatively  small,  heretical  or  fanatical  bodies,  who 
have  largely  denounced  all  sectarianism,  for  the  purpose  of  build- 
ino-  up  new  sects  of  the  extremest  sectarianism,  and  who  reject 
the  testimony  of  ages  and  the  confessions  of  Christendom,  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  in  their  place  the  private  opinion  of  some 
pretentious  heresiarch  of  the  hour.  The  latest  assaults  upon  the 
old-fashioned  denorainationalism  are  made,  every  now  and  then, 
by  some  new  church,  the  statistics  and  leading  features  of 
which  are  somewhat  as  follows :  ministers,  one ;  members, 
intermittent  from  the  sexton  up  to  a  moderate  crowd,  accord- 
ing as  the  subject  of  the  sermon  advertised  on  Saturday  takes 
or  does  not  take  the  fancy  of  those  who  spend  the  Lord's  day 
in  hunting  lions  ;  churches,  one  (over,  if  not  in,  a  beer  saloon ;) 
creed,  every  man  believes  what  he  chooses  ;  terms  of  member- 
ship, every  one  who  feels  like  it  shall  belong  till  he  chooses  to 
leave.  This  uncompromising  body,  which  looks  forward  to 
the  speedy  overthrow  of  all  Christendom  because  all  Christen- 
dom rests  on  human  creeds,  is  styled  "  Church  of  the  Ever- 


116  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

lasting  Gospel,"  "Pure   Bible    Christians  Churcli,"  or  some- 
thing of  the  kind. 

Had  the  Lutheran  Church  chosen  her  own  name,  therefore, 
it  would  have  furnished  no  presumption  against  her  —  it  would 
have  only  shown  that,  as  sectarianism  may  take  the  names 
which  point  to  a  general  catholicity,  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  most  truly  catholic  of  Christian  bodies  might  be  willing 
to  submit  to  the  historical  necessity  of  assuming  a  name  which 
seemed  to  point  to  a  human  originator.    There  was  a  time  when 
the   true  Catholics  were    tauntingly  called  Athanasians,  and 
could  not  repudiate  the   name   of  Athanasius  without  faith- 
lessness to  the  triune  God  himself.      But  our  Church  is  not 
responsible  for  this  portion  of  her  name.     She  has  been  known 
by  various  titles,  but  her  own  earliest  and  strongest  preference 
was  for  the  name  Evangelical,  (1525,)  and  many 
.vangeica.    ^^  ^^^^  most  devoted  sons  have  insisted  on  giv- 
ino*  her  this  title  without  any  addition,     ^o  title  could  more 
strongly  express  her  character,  for  pre-eminently  is  her  system 
one  which  announces  the   glad    tidings  of   salvation,  w^hich 
excites  a  joyous  trust  in  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  which  makes 
the   word   and   sacraments    bearers  of  saving   grace.     In  no 
system  is  Christ  so  much  as  in  the  Lutheran  ;  none  exalts  so 
much  the  glory  of  his  person,  of  his  office,  and  of  his  work. 
The  very  errors  with  which  her  enemies  charge  the  Lutheran 
Church  are  those  which  would  arise  from  an  excess  in  this 
direction.     If  she  believed  in  a  local  ubiquity  of  Christ's  whole 
person,  (as  she  does  not,)  this  would  b«  the  excess  of  faith  in 
his  presence;  if  she  believed  in  consubstantiation,  (as  she  does 
not,)  this  would  show  that  though  her  faith  in  Christ  was 
blind,  yet  it  hesitated  at  nothing  which  seemed  to  rest  on  his 
word  ;  if  she  denied  the  obligation  of  the  Church  to  keep  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  (as  she  does  not,)  it  would  show  that  she 
had  carried  to  excess  her  disposition  to  see  in  Christ  the  sub- 
stance of  all  shadows.     Happy  is  the  Church  whose  failings 
bear  in  the  direction  of  safety,  which,  if  it  err,  errs  not  in  a  legal- 
istic direction,  but  in  an  excess  of  evangelism.     The  heart  of 
unbelief  works  only  too  surely  in  reducing  an  excess  ;  but  how 
shall  a  Church  be  revived,  which,  in  its  very  constitution,  is 


CHURCH   OF  THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.     117 

defective  in  the  evangelical  element  ?  The  name  Evangelical 
is  now  given,  out  of  the  bounds  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  to 
the  Christianity  of  the  heart  everywhere,  to  all  that  makes 
much  of  Christ  in  the  right  way.  It  is  a  poor  trick  of  some 
extravagant  party  within  a  party  —  some  paltry  clique  in 
Protestantism  at  large,  or  in  one  of  its  communions — to  attempt 
to  monopolize  the  name  Evangelical.  Where  thoughtful  men 
accept  the  word  in  this  narrowed  sense,  they  despise  it  —  hut 
it  is,  in  its  true,  original  compass,  a  noble,  a  glorious  name,  not 
to  be  lightly  abandoned  to  those  who  abuse  it.  The  true  cor- 
rective of  abuse,  is  to  restore,  or  hold  fast  the  right  use.  Our 
Church,  to  which  it  belongs  in  the  great  historic  sense,  has  a 
claim  in  her  actual  life,  second  to  none,  to  wear  it.  She  is  the 
Evangelical  Church. 

At  the  Diet  of  Spire,  (1529,)  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Con- 
fessors, from  their  protest  against  the  government  of  the  Bishops 
and  against  the  enforced  imposition  of  the  Mass,  received  the 
name  of  Protestants.  This  continued  to  be  the  diplomatic  style 
of  the  Church  till  the  peace  of  Westphalia,  1648.  p^.^^^^^^.^^^. 
"  The  name  Protestants,"  says  Archbishop  Bram- 
hall,  "  is  one  to  which  others  have  no  right  but  by  commu- 
nion with  the  Lutherans."  This  name,  in  European  usage,  is 
indeed,  to  a  large  extent,  still  confined  to  them. 

In  Poland  and  Hungary,  the  official  title  of  our  communion 
is  "  Church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  and  this     ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^  ^j^^ 
is  the  name  which,  on  the  title-page  of  the  Form  of  Augsburg contvs- 
Concord,  and  repeatedly  within  it,  is  given  to  our 
churches.* 

The  name  Lutheran  was  first  used  by  Eck,  when  he  published 
the  Bull  against  Luther.  Pope  Hadrian  YI.  (1522)  employed 
it,  also,  as  a  term  of  reproach.  It  was  applied  by  the  Roman- 
ists to  all  who  took  part  against  the  Pope.f  Luther  strongly 
disapproved  of  the  use  of  his  name,  while  he  warned  men  at 

*  ''Electors,  Prince,  and  States  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  "who  embrace 
the  Augsburg  Confession,"  Gerhard,  in  the  title-page  of  his  "Confessio  Cath- 
olica  "  :  "  The  Catholic  and  Evangelical  doctrine  as  it  is  professed  by  the  churches 
devoted  (addictae)  to  the  Augsburg  Confession." 

fin  the  German  of  the  Apology  of  the  A.  C,  213,  44,  it  is  said:  "The  saving 
doctrine,  the  precious,  Holy  Gospel,  they  call  Lutheran." 


118  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

the  same  time  against  such  a  repudiation  of  it  as  might  seem 
to  imply  a  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  God's  word  preached  by 
him.  "  It  is  my  doctrine,  and  it  is  not  my  doctrine  ;  it  is  in 
ray  hand,  but  God  put  it  there.  Luther  Avill  have  nothing  to  do 
with  Lutheranism  except  as  it  teaches  Holy  Scripture 
purely."*  "  Let  us  not  call  our  Church  Lutheran," 
said  Gustavus  Erichson,King  of  Sweden,  "let  us  call  it  Christian 
and  Apostolic."  The  Church  simply  tolerates  the  name  to 
avoid  the  misapprehension  and  confusion  which  would  arise  if 
it  were  laid  aside.  "  We  do  not  call  ourselves  Lutherans,  but 
are  so  styled  by  our  enemies,  and  we  permit  it  as  a  token  of  our 
consent  with  the  pure  teaching  of  the  word  which  Luther  set 
forth.  We  suffer  ourselves  to  bear  his  name,  not  as  of  one  who 
has  invented  a  new  faith,  but  of  one  who  has  restored  the  old,  and 
purified  the  Church."  f  "  Our  faith  does  not  rest  upon  Luther's 
authority.  We  hearken  to  the  voice  of  Christ  in  his  word,  to 
which,  as  his  faithful  teacher  and  servant,  Luther  led  us." 
"  We  are  called  Lutherans  only  by  Papists  and  other  secta- 
rians, as  in  the  ancient  Church  the  Arians  styled  those  who  held 
the  true  faith  Athanasians."  Li  the  Form  of  Concord,  indeed, 
the  Church  has  uttered  a  solemn  protest  against  all  human 
authority,  which  ought  forever  to  remove  the  misapprehension 
that  any  other  position  is  conceded  to  Luther  than  that  of  a 
witness  for  the  truth.  :j: 

It  is  not  indeed  difficult  to  see  why  the  name  of  Luther 
should  attach  itself  so  firmly  to  the  part  of  the  Church  in 
whose  Reformation  he  was  the  noblest  worker.  He  was  ihQ  first 
Reformer  —  the  one  from  whom  the  whole  Reformation  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century  evolved  itself.  What  may  be  the  date 
Reason  of  the  ^^  ^^^  pHvatc  opiulous  of  othcrs  has  nothing  to  do 
»«an'e.  with  this  qucstiou.     A  reformer  is  not  one  who 

thinks  reformation,  but  one  who  brings  it  about.  Men  had 
not  only  had  reformatory  ideas  before  Luther  was  born,  but 
had  died  for  them,  and  in  some  sense,  though  not  utterly,  had 
died  in  vain.     The  names  of  Wiclif,  Huss,  Jerome  of  Prague, 

*  See  the  passages  collected  in  Cotta's  Gerhard,  xi.  229. 
t  Gerhard :   Loci,  xi.  224,  228,  230. 
X  Form.  Concord,  518,  2.  8. 


REASON    OF   THE   NAME.  119 

and  Savanarola,  will  be  forever  dear  to  mankind.  Yet  the  Re- 
formers before  the  Reformation  were  only  such  potentially. 
So  often  did  the  Reformation  seem  to  hang  upon  Luther's  own 
person,  that  we  are  justified  in  saying  that  God  gave  him  the 
place  he  filled,  because  there  was  no  other  man  of  his  age  to 
fill  it.  With  all  the  literary  grace  of  Erasmus,  how  feeble 
does  he  seem,  ''  spending  his  life,"  as  Luther  happily  said, 
''  trying  to  walk  on  eggs  without  breaking  them."  Without 
Luther,  we  see  no  evidence  that  the  Reformation  of  the  six- 
teenth century  would  have  taken  place,  or  that  the  names 
of  Zwingle,  Melanchthon,  or  Calvin  would  occupy  their  present 
place  in  history.  'Eo  position  is  so  commanding  as  that  of  Lu- 
ther. He  rises  above  the  crowned  heads,  above  the  potentates 
in  Church  and  in  State,  and  above  all  the  Reformers  of  his  era. 
In  this  or  that  respect  he  has  had  equals  —  in  a  few  respects  he 
has  had  superiors,  but  in  the  full  circle  of  those  glorious  gifts 
of  nature  and  of  grace  which  form  a  great  man,  he  has  had 
no  superiors,  and  no  equals.  He  sustained  a  responsibility  such 
as  never  rested  upon  any  other  man,  and  he  proved  himself 
sufiicient  for  it.  In  the  Reformation,  of  the  Germanic  and 
Scandinavian  type,  his  views  carried  great  weight  with  them. 
His  name  to  this  hour  is  revered  with  a  singleness  and  passion- 
ateness  of  afi:ection  without  a  parallel.  'Eo  man  was  able  to 
take  to  the  Swiss  type  of  Reformation,  the  attitude  Luther 
took  to  the  Germanic.  In  its  own  nature,  the  Reformed  divi- 
sion has  no  ideal  embodied  in  an  actual  life  ;  it  cannot  have  a 
solitary  man  who  is  its  microcosm.  It  can  have  no  little 
Cosmos,  because  it  has  no  great  Cosmos ;  it  can  have  no  name 
equally  revered  in  all  its  branches.  Luther  is  more  a  hero  to 
it  than  any  one  of  its  own  heroes.  It  could  have  at  best  but 
a  unity  like  that  of  those  great  stars  which  have  been 
broken,  and  as  asteroids  are  now  separate  in  their  unity. 
But,  in  fact,  it  has  no  unity,  no  tendency  to  draw  around  a 
common  historical  centre.  It  binds  itself  closely  to  the  par- 
ticular nationalities  in  which  it  is  found.  It  is  German,  Dutch, 
Scotch.  Out  of  this  arises  a  confusion,  when  these  churches 
make  a  transition  into  other  nationalities.  So  little  is  there 
of  the  tendency  to  unity,  that  they  keep  up  their  old  divisions 


120  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

with  their  old  names,  when  they  have  put  an  ocean  hetween 
them  and  the  land  of  their  origin.  The  name  of  the  national 
tongue  cleaves  to  the  hody,  until  the  vague  yearning  of  union- 
istic  feeling  overcomes  the  Calvinistic  positiveness,  or  the 
sense  of  the  living  nationality  completely  overcomes  the  tradi- 
tionary feeling  of  the  old,  or  a  broader  catholicity  is  substituted 
for  the  earlier  denominational  feeling.  Then  only  the  name 
of  tongue  or  race  drops,  but  wdth  it  vanishes  an  evidence,  if 
not  a  source  of  fealty  to  the  original  tendency  of  the  Zwinglo- 
Calvinistic  Reformation. 

The  Swiss   Reformation,  which  had  commenced  with  the 
Pelagianizing  and  rationalistic  tendency  imparted  by  Zwingle, 
was  redeemed  by  Calvin,  who,  under  influences  originating  in 
the  Lutheran  Church,  w^as  brought  to  that  profounder  faith 
which,  in  many  of  its  aspects,  is  a  concession  to  the  Lutheran 
system  over  against  the  Zwingiian.     Calvin  was,  as  compared 
w^ith  Zwingle,  Lutheranizing  in  doctrine  and  in  worship ;  but, 
as  compared  with  Luther,  he  was  Zwinglianizing  in  both.    But 
the   Lutheranizing   element  w^hich   Calvin  brought,  and  by 
which  he  saved  the  Swiss  tendency  from  early  transition  to 
chaos,  was  not  sufficient  to  overcome  all  its  defects.    The  com- 
parative unity  of  Calvinism  has  been  broken  in  upon  by  the 
nationalizing  tendency  showing  itself  in  the  rise  of  a  variety 
of  national  creeds,  where  there  was  little  real  difference  of 
doctrine  ;  by  the  internal  sectarian  tendency  producing  Calvin- 
istic denominations  within  the  national  Calvinistic  churches  ; 
and  by  the  branching  off  of  Arminian  and  other  sects.     The 
Lutheran  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  has  had  a  great  relative 
unity.     It  has  not  felt  itself  divided  by  the  nationalities  into 
which  it  is  distributed.     It  has  a  common  Confession  through- 
out the  world  ;  and  while  it  repudiates  the  idea  that  true  unity 
depends   upon   outward   uniformity,  its   unity  of  spirit   has 
wrought  a  substantial  likeness  throughout  the  world,  in  life, 
usage,  and  worship.     In  view  of  all  these  facts,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  the  name  of  Luther  has  adhered  to  the  Church. 
It  has  an  historical  definiteness  which  no  other  of  the  greatest 
names  associated  with   the  Reformation  would  have.      The 
system  of  Zwingle,  as  a  whole,  is  not  now  the  confessional 


REASON   OF   THE   NAME.  121 

system  of  any  denomination.  The  Arniinians  who  would  accept 
his  sacramental  views,  reject  his  fatalistic  ideas.  The  Calvinists 
reject  his  sacramental  views  and  his  Pelagianism.  The  name  of 
Calvin  would  not  define  denominational  character ;  for  within 
the  Calvinistic  denominations  there  is  so  real  a  diversity  that 
parts  of  the  Reformed  Churches  vary  more  from  each  other  than 
those  most  in  affinity  with  the  Lutheran  Church  vary  from  it. 
Of  all  the  Church-names  suggested  by  the  ingenuity  of  men,  by 
the  enmity  of  foes,  or  by  the  partiality  of  friends,  what  name,  in 
the  actual  state  of  Christianity,  is  preferable  to  the  name  Lu- 
theran ?  The  name  "  Christian  "  has  no  divine  warrant.  First 
used  at  Antioch,  it  may  have  been  meant  as  a  reproach ;  and  St. 
Peter  alludes  to  it  only  as  actually  used,  not  as  commanded. 
We  know  that  "  I^azarenes  "  and  "  Galileans  "  were  the  earlier 
names  of  the  disciples  of  Christ.  To  assume  the  name  Christian, 
or  any  other  title  which  belongs  to  all  believers,  as  the  exclusive 
name  of  any  part  of  Christendom,  is  in  the  last  degree  pre- 
sumptuous. The  name  "  Catholic  "  is  also  without  divine  com- 
mand :  it  embraces  the  whole  true  Church  invisible  ;  and  while 
our  Church  claims  that  her  true  members  are  a  part  of  this 
Church  Catholic,  and  that  she  confesses  in  all  their  purity  its 
doctrines,  she  would  repudiate  the  claim  of  any  particular 
Church  to  the  sole  possession  of  this  great  title.  The  "  Ortho- 
dox Church  "  of  the  East  is  only  entitled  to  that  name  if  the 
rest  of  Christendom  is  heterodox.  "  Roman  Catholic  "  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  The  Church  which  bears  it  ceases  to 
be  Catholic  just  in  the  proportion  in  which  it  is  Roman.  To 
call  a  church  "  Episcopal,"  is  to  give  it  a  title  which  only 
marks  its  government,  and  that  a  government  not  peculiar  to 
it:  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Greek  Church,  the  Oriental 
sects,  are  all  Episcopal  in  government.  To  limit  it  by  ''  Pro- 
testant "  still  leaves  it  vague.  The  Lutheran  Church  in 
Denmark,  in  I^orway,  and  in  Sweden,  and  the  Moravian 
Churches  are  Episcopal  in  government  and  Protestant  in  doc- 
trine. The  name  "  Presbyterian  "  only  indicates  a  form  of  gov- 
ernment in  which  great  bodies  of  Christians  concur  who  differ 
in  faith  and  usage.  "  Methodist  "  simply  preserves  a  college 
nickname,  and  is  given  to  a  variety  of  bodies.     "  Methodist 


122  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Episcopal  "  unites  that  nickname  with  a  form  of  government 
older  and  wider  than  Methodism.  The  name  "  Baptists  "  only 
indicates  the  doctrine  concerning  the  external  mode  and  the 
proper  candidates  for  a  Christian  sacrament,  and  covers  a  great 
number  of  communions  which  have  nothing  else  in  common. 
The  name  ''  Reformed  "  applies  to  a  species  that  belongs  to 
a  o-enus.  There  is,  indeed,  in  every  case,  a  history  which  ex- 
plains, if  it  does  not  justify,  these  names :  nevertheless,  every 
one  of  them,  as  the  distinctive  name  of  a  communion,  is  open 
to  the  charge  of  claiming  too  much,  expressing  too  little,  or 
of  thrusting  an  accident  into  the  place  of  an  essential  principle. 
The  necessity  of  distinctive  names  arises  from  the  indisputable 
divisions  of  Christendom,  and  in  the  posture  of  all  the  facts 
the  name  of  Luther  defines  the  character  of  a  particular 
Church  as  no  other  could.  It  has  been  borne  specifically  by 
but  one  Church ;  and  that  Church,  relieved  as  she  is  of  all 
the  responsibility  of  assuming  it,  need  not  be  ashamed  of  it. 
^o  name  of  a  mere  man  is  more  dear  to  Christendom  and  to 
humanity.  It  is  a  continual  remembrancer  of  the  living  faith, 
the  untiring  energy,  the  love  of  Christ  and  of  men,  on  the 
part  of  one  who  did  such  eminent  s(?rvice  to  the  Church,  that 
men  cannot  think  of  her  without  thinking  of  him. 

The  name  thus  given  her  in  scorn  by  her  foes  stands,  for 
historical  reasons,  in  conjunction  with  the  name  she  first  chose 
for  herself.  As  distinct  from  the  Romish  Church,  and  all 
churches  which  obscure  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  or  do  not 
confess  its  doctrines  in  all  their  fulness,  let  her  consent  to  be 
called  THE  EYAKGELICAL  LUTHERAN  CHURCH,  to 
testify,  if  God  so  please,  to  the  end  of  time,  that  she  is  neither 
ashamed  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  nor  of  Christ's  servant  who, 
in  the  presence  of  earth  and  of  hell,  restored  that  Gospel, 
preached  it,  lived  it,  and  died  in  the  triumphs  of  its  faith. 

Our  age  has  been  extraordinarily  fertile  in  efltbrts  at  defining 
the  distinctive  and  antithetical  characteristics  of  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Churches.  One  age  develops  principles  —  another 
speculates  on  them.  The  sixteenth  century  was  creative  —  the 
nineteenth  is  an  age  of  cosmogonies:  the  one  made  worlds  — 
the  other  disputes  how  they  were  made.     "  The  owl  of  Mi- 


DISTINCTIVE  PRINCIPLE.  123 

nerva,"  says  Hegel,  "  always  flaps  her  wings  in  the  twilight."  * 
Gobel,  Mtzsch,  and  Heppe  affirm  that  in  Reformed  Protest- 
antism, the  formal  principle  of  the  exclusive  normal  authority 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  (acknowledged  by  both)  is  the  domi- 
nating principle.     In  Lutheran  Protestantism,  the  material 
principle,  justification  by  faith,  (acknowledged  by  both,)  dom- 
inates.    In  the  former,  Scripture  is  regarded  more  exclusively 
as  the  sole  source ;  in  the  latter,  more  as  the  norm  of  a  doc- 
trine which  is  evolved  from  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  to  which, 
consequently,  the  pure  exegetical  and  confessional  tradition  of 
the  Church  possesses  more  value.      Ilerzog  says      Distinctive 
that  Lutheran  Protestantism  is  the  antithesis  to   pnndpie  of  the 
the  Judaism  of  the  Romish  Church  —  an  antith- 
esis which  has  imparted  to  the  Lutheran  doctrines  a  Gnos- 
ticizing  tinge:    the  Reformed  Protestantism  was  opposed  to 
the  paganism  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  thus  came  to  exhibit 
in  its  doctrine  a  Judaizing  ethical  character.    Schweizer  says : 
"  The  Reformed  Protestantism  is  the  protestation  against  every 
deification  of  the  creature,  and,  consequently,  lays  its  empha- 
sis on  the  absoluteness  of  God,  and  the  sovereignty  of  his  will. 
This  is  its  material  principle,  with  which  coheres  the  exclusive 
emphasizing  of  Scripture  as  the  normal  principle."     In  a  sim- 
ilar  vein   of  thought,   Baur   says :    "  The    Reformed  system 
begins  above,  and  comes  down ;  the  Lutheran  begins  below,  and 
ascends."     We  might  perhaps  phrase  it :  the  Reformed  begins 
w^ith  God,  and  reasons  down  to  man  ward  ;  the  Lutheran  begins 
with   man,  and   reasons  up   to   Godward.     In  opposition  to 
this  view,  Schneckenburger  says  that  the  distinction  does  not 
arise  from  the  predominance  of  the  theological  in  the  one  sys- 
tem, of  the  anthropological  in  the  other,  of  the  absolute  idea 
of  God  upon  the  one  side,  or  of  the  subjective  consciousness 
of  salvation  on  the  other,  but  in  the  difi:erent  shape  taken  in 
the  two  systems  by  the  consciousness  of  salvation  itself;  from 
which  it  results  that  the  one  system  falls  back  upon  the  eter- 
nal decree,  the  other  is  satisfied  to  stop  at  justification  by  faith. 
Stahl,  approximating  more  to  the  view  of  Schweizer,  finds  in 
the  "  absolute  causality  "  of  God  the  dominating  principle  of 

*  Kahnis,  Princip.  d.  Protestant., 4. 


124  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

the  Reformed  doctrine,  and  regards  it  as  its  characteristic 
that  its  line  of  thought  is  adverse  to  the  recognition  of 
mysteries.*  "  The  entire  structure  of  the  Reformed  Church 
is  determined,  on  the  one  side,  by  a  motive  of  opposition  to 
the  mysterious,  (no  actual  dispensation  by  the  means  of  grace,) 
which  was  imparted  to  it  b}'-  Zwingle ;  and  on  the  other  side,  by 
the  evangelical  theocratic  impulse,  (the  glorification  of  God  in 
the  consfreoiatioi),)  which  was  derived  from  Calvin."  f  How 
far  these  estimates  may  be  accepted  as  well-grounded,  our 
readers  can  judge  with  the  facts  more  fully  before  them. 

The  Lutheran  Church  has  peculiar  claims  upon  the  interest 
of  the  thoughtful  reader  of  history,  as  she  is  the  oldest,  the 
most  clearly  legitimate,  the  most  extensive  of  Protestant 
Churches,  and  in  a  certain  sense  the  mother  of  them  all.  Em- 
bracing the  ISTorth  of  Europe,  the  Scandinavian  kingdoms,  the 
German  States,  with  millions  of  her  children  in  Russia,  Hun- 
gary, Poland,  France,  Holland,  and  in  almost  every  part  of 
the  globe  where  Protestantism  is  tolerated,  she  speaks  in  more 
tongues,  and  ministers  in  more  nationalities  than  all  the  others 
^nu     together.     She  is  the  most  conservative  of  them 

Claims  and  Cha-  o 

racter  of  the  Lu-  all,  thougli  shc  borc  thc  first  and  greatest  part 
in  the  most  daring  aggression  on  established 
error.  !N"o  church  has  so  vigorously  protested  against  the 
abuses  of  human  reason,  and  none  has  done  so  much  for 
the  hiijhest  culture  of  the  human  mind  —  she  has  made 
Germany  the  educator  of  the  world.  Xo  church  has  been 
so  deeply  rooted  in  the  verities  of  the  ancient  faith,  and 
none  has  been  marked  by  so  much  theological  progression  :  in 
none  has  independent  religious  thought  gone  forth  in  such 
matchless  ornature  of  learning,  and  under  such  constant  con- 
trol of  a  genuine  moderation.  Ko  church  has  enunciated  more 
boldly  the  principles  of  Christian  liberty,  and  none  has  been 
so  free  from  a  tendency  to  pervert  it  to  licentiousness.  ITo 
church  has  more  reverently  bowed  to  the  authority  of  God's 
Word,  and  none  has  been  more  free  from  the  tendency  to  sect 
and  schism.  More  than  forty  millions  of  the  human  race 
acknowledge  her  as  their  spiritual  mother ;    and   she  gives 

*Lutbardt,  Dogm.,  g  13,  1.  f  Stalil,  Die  Luth.  Kirch.,  65. 


CLAIMS   AND   CHARACTER.  125 

them  all,  not  only  the  one  rule  of  faith,  but  she  does  what  no 
other  church  does :  acknowledging  the  Bible  as  the  only  authority, 
she  gives  to  her  various  nationalities  one  confession  of  faith,  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  of  which  the  most  popular  historian 
of  the  Reformation,  a  French  Calvinist,  says:  "It  will  ever 
remain  one  of  the  masterpieces  of  the  human  mind  enlight- 
ened by  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and  which  Bishop  Bull  calls  "  the 
greatest,  the  most  noble  and  ancient  of  all  the  confessions  of 
the  Reformed  Churches."  This  immortal  document  furnishes 
an  integral  defining  term  to  the  Lutheran  Church.  Through  all 
time  and  in  all  lands  this  is  hers :  it  is  her  grand  distinction 
that  she  is  the  Church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

It  has  been  said  with  some  truth  that  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  development  of  Christianity  is  closely  allied  with 
that  of  Augustine,  but  it  is  wholly  remote  from  his  fatalistic 
tendencies,  and  from  his  indeterminate  and  often  self-contra- 
dictory attitude  toward  many  important  points  of  doctrine. 
The  Romish  Church  makes  divine  things  objects  of  sense,  the 
ultra-Protestant  principle  would  make  them  objects  of  the 
understanding,  the  Lutheran  Church  holds  them  as  objects  of 
faith.  The  Romish  Church  too  much  confounds  the  divine 
and  the  human,  as  for  example,  in  the  person  of  The  Lutheran 
Christ,  in   Scripture,  in  the  Church,  and  in   the  church.  The  Ra- 

'  ^  '  dical    Protestant 

Sacraments.  Ultra-Protestantism  separates  them  churches.  The 
too  much.  The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  Komi.h  church, 
holds  herself  alike  remote  from  confounding  and  from  sepa- 
rating them,  and  maintains  them  as  at  once  distinct  in  their 
essence,  and  inseparable  in  their  union.*  "  Zwingle's  labors 
were  from  the  outward  to  the  inward,  Luther's  wholly  from 
the  iuAvard  to  the  outward.  The  Reformed  Reformation,  like 
all  the  earlier  efforts,  would  probably  have  failed,  if  the 
Reformed  had  not  received  from  Luther  the  internal  element 
of  faith.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  that  Reformation  which 
was  actually  brought  to  pass,  was  begun  by  Luther.  With 
full  justice,  in  this  respect,  he  is  entitled  to  be  called  the  first 
Reformer." t  "The  Lutheran  Church  is  the  most  glorious 
and  most  complete  earthly  image  of  the  invisible   Church. 

*  Kurtz,  Lehrb.  d.  K.  G.,  ed,  6th,  18G8,  ^  140.  f  Goebel,  52. 


126  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

The  word  in  tlie  spirit,  the  spirit  in  the  word,  the  hody  in  the 
idea,  the  idea  in  the  body,  the  visible  in  the  invisible,  and  this 
again  in  that,  the  human  and  natural  in  the  divine  and  super- 
natural, and  these  latter  elements  again  in  the  former  —  this 
is  what  she  aims  at,  and  this  it  is  she  has.  As  the  Romish 
Church  represents  mere  rest  and  stability,  the  Reformed  mere 
unrest  and  mobility,  and  both  are  consequently  defective  in 
development  and  in  history  in  the  highest  sense  of  those 
terms,  the  Lutheran  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  has  in  it  the 
true  germ  of  historical  life,  which  constantly  expands  itself 
toward  a  higher  perfection.  In  the  Romish  Church  the  life 
of  history  dries  up,  in  the  Reformed  it  is  comminuted  ;  in  the 
one  it  compacts  itself  to  a  mummy,  in  the  other  it  dissipates 
itself  into  atoms.  There  is  a  Lutheran  Church.,  but  there  are 
only  Calvinistic  or  Reformed  Churches.'''^ 

"  The  Lutheran  Church  in  its  distinctive  character,"  says  a 
Reformed  w^riter,  f  "  can  tolerate  no  sects.  The  number  of  the 
Reformed  sects  is  prodigious,  literallj^  innumerable.  In  Edin- 
burgh alone  there  are  sixteen  of  them,  in  Glasgow  twenty-six. 
It  seems  as  if  the  production  of  these  sects,  which  shoot  up  as 
mushrooms  in  the  soil  of  the  Reformed  Church,  were  neces- 
sary to  the  preservation  of  her  life  and  health.  They  have  all 
proceeded  from  the  same  principle,  and  have  only  striven  to 
carry  it  out  more  logically,  and  she  is  therefore  bound  to  recog- 
nize them  as  her  genuine  children.  The  Lutheran  Church  is 
like  the  trunk  of  a  great  tree,  from  which  the  useless  branches 
have  been  cut  off,  and  into  w^hich  a  noble  scion  (justification 
by  faith)  has  been  grafted.  It  is  one  complete,  well-arranged, 
closely  compacted  church,  which  unsparingly  removes  all  wild 
growths  and  pernicious  off -shoots,  (sects.)  The  Reformed 
Church  has  cut  down  the  tree  to  the  root,  (the  Holy  Scrijv 
tures,)  and  from  that  healthy  root  springs  up  a  wide  thicket. 
The  dying  out  of  one  of  the  twigs  only  leaves  ampler  nourish- 
ment for  the  others."  The  most  powerful  conservative  influ- 
ences within  the  Reformed  Churches  have,  in  fact,  invariably 
l)een  connected  more  or  less  immediately  with  the  Lutheran 
Church.  With  her  principles  is  bound  up  the  only  hope  of 
Protestant  unity. 

*  Wiggers,  i.  96.  f  Goebel,  176. 


ARMINIANISM  AND    CALVINISM.  127 

In  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  (1530,)  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  a  bond  of  her  distinctive  life  through- 
out the  entire  world.  As  a  further  development  the  Evangdicai 
of  her  doctrines,  the  larger  part  of  the  Church  ^-'th  ranci.urc. 
recognizes  the  confessional  character  of  the  "  Apolofi:y  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession,"  (1530,)  the  Larger  and  Smaller  Cate- 
chisms of  Luther,  (1529,)  the  Smalcald  articles,  (1537,)  and 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  (1577,)  all  which  were  issued  together 
in  1580,  with  a  preface  signed  by  fifty-one  princes,  and  by  the 
official  representatives  of  thirty-five  cities.  The  whole  collec- 
tion bore  ,the  title  of  the  "Book  of  Concord."  The  funda- 
mental doctrine  most  largely  asserted  in  them  is,  that  we  are 
justified  before  God,  not  through  any  merit  of  our  own,  but 
by  his  tender  mercy,  through  faith  in  his  Son.  The  depravity 
of  man  is  total  in  its  extent,  and  his  will  has  no  positive  ability 
in  the  work  of  salvation,  but  has  the  negative  ability  (under 
the  ordinary  means  of  grace)  of  ceasing  its  resistance.  Jesus 
Christ  offered  a  proper,  vicarious,  propitiatory  sacrifice.  Faith 
in  Christ  presupposes  a  true  i3enitence.  The  renewed  man  co- 
works  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  Sanctification  is  progressive, 
and  never  reaches  absolute  perfection  in  this  life.  The  Holy 
Spirit  w^orks  through  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  which 
only,  in  the  proper  sense,  are  means  of  grace.  Both  the  Word 
and  the  Sacraments  bring  a  positive  grace,  which  is  oftered  to 
all  who  receive  them  outwardly,  and  which  is  actually  imparted 
to  all  who  have  faith  to  embrace  it. 

Luther,  in  consequence  of  his  rigid  training  in  the  Augus- 
tinian  theology,  had  maintained,  at  an  earlier  period,  a  particu- 
laristic election,  a  view  which  he  gradually  aban-  Anmnianism 
doned.  The  views  of  Arminius  himself,  in  regard  ••"idcahinism. 
to  the  five  points,  were  formed  under  Lutheran  influences, 
and  do  not  diflfer  essentially  from  those  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  ;  but  on  many  points  in  the  developed  system  now 
known  as  Arminianisra,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  no  affinity 
whatever  w^ith  it,  and  on  these  points  would  sympathize  far 
more  with  Calvinism,  though  she  has  never  believed  that  in 
order  to  escape  from  Pelagianism,  it  is  necessary  to  run  into 
the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination.    The  "  Formula  of  Con- 


128  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

cord  "  touches  the  five  points  almost  purely  on  their  practical 
Bides,  and  on  them  arrays  itself  against  Calvinism,  rather  by  the 
negation  of  the  inferences  which  result  logically  from  that 
system,  than  by  express  condemnation  of  its  fundamental 
theory  in  its  abstract  form.  It  need  hardly  be  added  that  the 
Lutheran  Church  holds  firmly  all  the  doctrines  of  the  pure  Cath- 
olic faith,  and  of  our  general  Protestant  and  Evangelical  or- 
thodoxy. 

The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  regards  the  "Word  of  God, 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  as  the  absolute  and  only  law  of  faith 
and  of  life.  AVhatever  is  undefined  by  its  letter  or  its  spirit, 
is  the  subject  of  Christian  liberty,  and  pertains  not  to  the 
sphere  of  conscience,  but  to  that  of  order  ;  no  power  may  enjoin 
Rule  ..f  laith  upon  the  Church  as  necessary  what  God  has  forbid- 
and  Creed.  ^q^-^^  q^  ]-jr^g  p^sscd  by  iu  silcuce,  as  none  may  for- 
bid her  to  hold  what  God  has  enjoined  upon  her,  or  to  prac- 
tise what  by  His  silence  he  has  left  to  her  freedom.  Just  as 
firmly  as  she  holds  upon  the  one  hand  that  the  Bible  is  the 
rule  of  faith,  and  not  a  confession  of  it,  she  holds,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  creed  is  a  confession  of  faith,  and  not  the  rule 
of  it.  The  pure  creeds  are  simply  the  testimony  of  the  true 
Church  to  the  doctrines  she  holds ;  but  as  it  is  the  truth  they 
confess,  she,  of  necessity,  regards  those  who  reject  the  truth 
confessed  in  the  creed,  as  rejecting  the  truth  set  forth  in  the 
Word.  While,  therefore,  it  is  as  true  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
as  of  any  other,  that  when  she  lays  her  hand  upon  the  Bible, 
she  gives  the  command,  "Believe!"  and  when  she  lays  it  on 
the  confession,  she  puts  the  question,  "  Do  you  believe  ?  "  ^  it  is 
also  true,  that  when  a  man  replies  "  I^o,"  to  the  question,  she 
considers  him  as  thereby  giving  evidence  that  he  has  not  obeyed 
the  command.  Believing  most  firmly  that  she  has  the  truth, 
and  that  her  testimony  to  this  truth  is  set  forth  in  her  creeds, 
she  is  distinguished  among  Protestant  churches  by  her  fidelity 
to  her  Confession.  "  During  the  time  of  unbelief,  the  State 
Church  of  Holland,  the  Church  of  the  Palatinate,  and  the  Re- 
formed Synod  of  Lower  Saxon}^  renounced  all  confessions  of 
faith.     Ko  Lutheran  Church,  however,  ventured  to  do  this."! 

*  See  Gotbcl,  122,  note.  f  ^o-.  l-^- 


B  APT  ISM.  129 

Very  great  misrepresentations  have  Ijeen  made  in  regard  to 
certain  doctrines  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Churcli,  which 
it  may  be  well  to  notice.  Ko  doctrine  can  be  D..ctrine«  mu- 
charged  upon  her  as  a  whole  unless  it  is  set  forth,  ropix-s.nted. 
or  fairly  implied  in  a  Confession  to  which  she  gives  a  universal 
recognition.  The  only  creeds  which  have  this  attribute  are 
tlie  oecumenical  creeds  and  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The 
large  majority  of  the  Church  wdiich  explicitly  receives  the 
other  Confessions  does  so  on  tlie  ground  that  one  system  is 
embraced  in  the  whole,  that  to  accept  one  ex  avimo  intelli- 
gently, is  logically  to  accept  all,  and  tliat  it  is  wise  for  the 
Church  so  fully  to  state  her  faith,  and  its  grounds,  that  as 
far  as  human  preventives  can  go,  the  crafty  shall  not  be  able 
to  misrepresent,  nor  the  simple  to  mistake  her  meaning. 
As  the  Church  did  but  the  more  surely  abide  by  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed  in  setting  forth  the  J^icene,  and  did  but  furnish 
fresh  guarantee  of  her  devotion  to  the  iS^'icene  in  adopting  the 
Athanasian,  and  gave  reassurance  of  her  fidelity  to  the  three 
oecumenical  creeds  in  accepting  the  Augsburg  Confession  — 
so  in  the  body  of  symbols  in  the  Book  of  Concord  she  reset  her 
seal  to  the  one  old  faith,  amplified  but  not  changed  in  the 
course  of  time. 

The  doctrines  in  regard  to  which  she  has  been  misrepre- 
sented, may  be  classed  under  the  following  heads : 

I.  Baptism.  The  Lutheran  Church  holds  that  it  is  necessary 
to  salvation  to  be  born  again  of  water  (baptism)  and  the  Spirit, 
(John  iii.  5,  and  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  11.  and  IX. ;)  but 
she  holds  that  this  necessity,  though  absolute  as  regards  the 
w^ork  of  the  Spirit,  is,  as  regards  the  outw^ard  part  of  baptism, 
ordinary,  not  absolute,  or  without  exception  ;  that  the  con- 
tempt of  the  sacrament,  not  the  w^ant  of  it,  condemns ;  and 
that  thouo-h  God  binds  us  to  the  means,  he  does      „    . 

•^  '  Baptism. 

not  bind  his  own  mercy  by  them.  From  the  time 
of  Luther  to  the  present  hour,  the  Lutheran  theologians  have 
maintained  the  salvability  and  actual  salvation  of  infants  dying 
unbaptized.  The  rest  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
as  a  whole,  is  involved  in  her  confessing,  with  the  Xicene 
creed,  "  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  that  through 
9 


130  COXSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

it  the  grace  of  God  is  offered,  that  children  are  to  be  baptized, 
and  that  being  thus  con  unit  ted  to  God,  thej  are  graciously 
received  by  him.  At  the  same  time  she  rejects  the  theory  of  the 
Anabaptists,  that  infants  unbaptized  have  salvation  because  of 
their  personal  innocence,  and  maintains  that  the  nature  with 
which  we  were  born  requires  a  change,  which  must  be  wrought 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  before  w^e  can  enter  into  heaven  (A.  C, 
Art.  IX.  and  II.,)  and  that  infants  are  saved  by  the  application 
of  Christ's  redemptory  work,  of  which  Baptism  is  the  ordinary 
channel. 

II.   Cons ubstantiat ion.    The  charge  that  the  Lutheran  Church 
holds  this  monstrous  doctrine  has  been  repeated  times  without 
number.     In  the  face  of  her  solemn  protestations  the  falsehood 
consub^tantia-  '^^  ^tlU  circulatcd.     It  would  be  easy  to  fill  many 
^^^"'-  pages  with  the  declarations  of  the  Confessions  of 

the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  and  of  her  great  theolo- 
gians, who,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  repudiate  this  doc- 
trine, the  name  and  the  thing,  in  whole  and  in  every  one  of  its 
parts.  In  the  "  Wittenberg  Concord,''  (1536,)  prepared  and 
signed  by  Luther  and  the  other  great  leaders  in  the  Church,  it 
is  said :  "  AVe  deny  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  as  we 
do  also  deny  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  locally 
included  in  the  bread."*  In  the  "Formula  of  Concord," f 
our  confessors  say :  "  We  utterly  reject  and  condemn  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Capernaitish  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ,  which 
after  so  many  protestations  on  oar  part,  is  maliciously  imputed 
to  us ;  the  manducation  is  not  a  thing  of  the  senses  or  of  rea- 
son, but  supernatural,  mysterious,  and  incomprehensible.  The 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  supper  is  not  of  a  physical  nature, 
nor  earthly,  nor  Capernaitish,  and  yet  it  is  most  true."  It 
would  not  be  difficult  to  produce  ample  testimony  of  the  same 
kind  from  intelligent  men  of  other  communions.  One  or  two 
of  the  highest  order  may  suffice.  Bishop  Waterland,  in  his 
great  work  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  speaks  thus : 
"  As  to  Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  however  widely  they  may 
appear  to  differ  in  words  and  names,  yet  their  ideas  seem  all 
to  concentre  in  what  I  have  mentioned.     The  Lutherans  deny 

*  III  Ru.lellach,  GG-4.  f  MUUers  ed.,  543,  547. 


UBIQUITY.  131 

every  article  almost  wliidi  they  are  commonly  charc^ed  with 
by  their  adversaries.  They  disown  assumption  of  the  elements 
into  the  humanity  of  Christ,  as  likewise  augmentation,  and 
impanation^  yea,  and  consiibstantiation  and  concomitancy ;  and 
if  it  be  asked,  at  length,  what  they  admit  and  abide  by,  it  is  a 
sacramental  union,  not  a  corporal  presence.^''  *  D'Aubigne  sa3^s: 
"  The  doctrines  (on  the  Lord's  Supper)  of  Luther,  Zwingle,  and 
Calvin  were  considered  in  ancient  times  as  different  views  of 
the  same  truth.  If  Luther  had  yielded  (at  Marburg)  it  might 
have  been  feared  that  the  Church  would  fall  into  the  extremes 
of  rationalism  .  .  .  Taking  Luther  in  his  best  moments,  we 
behold  merely  an  essential  unity  and  a  secondary  diversity  in 
the  two  parties." 

III.  Ubiquity.  The  Lutheran  Church  holds  that  the  essen- 
tial attributes  of  the  divine  and  of  the  human  natures  in  Christ 
are  inseparable  from  them,  and  that,  therefore,  the  attributes 
of  the  one  can  never  be  the  attributes  of  the  other.  But  a 
large  part  of  her  greatest  theologians  hold,  also,  that  as  His 
human  nature  is  taken  into  personal  union  with  the  divine,  it 
is  in  consequence  of  that  union  rendered  present 

,77.  -i  -,-,...  ,.  Ubiqiiitj'. 

through  the  divine^  wherever  the  divine  is  ;  that  is, 
that  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  which  as  to  its  finite 
presence  is  in  heaven,  is  in  another  sense,  equally  real,  every- 
where present.  "  Our  Church  rejects  and  condemns  the  error 
that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  locally  expanded  in  all  places 
of  heaven  and  earth,  or  has  become  an  infinite  essence,  "f 
"  If  we  speak  of  geometric  locality  and  space,  the  humanity 
of  Christ  is  not  everywhere."  "  In  its  proper  sense  it  can  be 
said  with  truth,  Christ  is  on  earth  or  in  His  Supper  only  ac- 
cording to  his  divine  natui^e,  to  wit,  in  the  sense  that  the 
humanity  of  Christ  by  its  own  nature  cannot  be  except  in  one 
place,  but  has  the  majesty  (of  co-presence)  only  from  the  divin- 
ity." ''When  the  word  corporeal  is  used  of  the  mode  of 
presence,  and  is  equivalent  to  local,  we  aflirm  that  the  body  of 
Christ  is  in  heaven  and  not  on  earth." 

''  Of  a  local  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ,  in,  with,  or  under 
the  bread,  there  never  was  any  controversy  between  the  Luther- 

*  Works,  Oxford,  1843,  iv.  642.  f  Form  of  Concord,  p.  548,  695. 


132  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

ans  and  Calvinists  ;  that  local  presence  we  expressly  reject  and 
condemn  in  all  our  writings.  But  a  local  absence  does  not 
prevent  a  sacramental  presence,  which  is  dependent  on  the 
communication  of  the  divine  Majesty." 

IV.  The  Lord^s  Day.  The  Augsburg  Confession  touches  on 
this  subject  only  incidentally  in  connection  with  the  question 
of  Church  power.  It  teaches  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  is 
abolished  ;  that  the  necessity  of  observing  the  First  day  of  the 
week  rests  not  upon  the  supposition  that  such  observance  has 
in  itself  a  justifying  power,  as  the  Romanists  contended,  but 
on  the  religious  wants  of  men.  It  teaches,  moreover,  that  the 
Lord's  day  is  of  apostolic  institution.  The  prevalent  judgment 
of  the  great  theologians  of  our  Church  has  been  that 

Lord's  I)av.  iii^ii  ••  t  i  ♦  n 

the  J!5abbath  was  instituted  at  the  creation  oi  man; 
that  the  generic  idea  it  involves,  requires  the  devoting  one  day 
of  the  week  as  the  minimum,  to  rest  from  labor  and  to  religious 
duties,  and  so  far  pertains  to  the  entire  race  through  all  time ; 
and  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  so  far  as  it  is  not  determina- 
tive and  typical,  but  involves  principles  and  w^ants  of  equal 
force  under  both  dispensations,  is  binding  on  Christians. 

An  ample  discussion  of  all  the  points  here  summarily  pre- 
sented will  be  found  in  their  place  in  this  volume. 

Perhaps  no  stronger  testimony  to  the  general  purity  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church  could  be  given,  than  that 
which  is  presented  in  the  statements  of  the  great  divines  of  the 
Reformed  Communion.    Zwingle*  says:  "Luther  has  brought 

Reformed  tes-  ^^rth  uotliiug  uovel,  [nihil  novi;)  but  that  which  is 
timcny  tothcL.i-  [aid  up  in  the  unchanging  and  eternal  Word  of  God, 
1.  zwingie.  2  hc  has  bouutifully  drawn  out;  and  has  opened  to 
Calvin.  Christians  who  had  been  misled,  the  heavenly  treas- 

ure." Calvin :t  "Call  to  mind  with  w^hat  great  efficacy  of 
teaching  Luther  hath  to  this  time  been  watchful  to  overthrow 
the  kingdom  of  Antichrist,  and  speak  the  doctrine  of  salvation." 
Anthony  de  Bourbon,  King  of  Navarre, :j:  (1501,)  said:  "Lu- 

3  Kirx'ufNa-  ^^^^^  ^^^^  Calvlu  differed  in  forty  points*  from  the 
Tarre.  Pope,  and  in  thirty-eight  of  them  agreed  with  one 

another  ;  there  were  but  two  points  on  which  there  was  con- 

*  Expin    .  Art.  XVIII.  f  Ep   ad  Bullingcr.  %  Tliuanus,  lib.  xxvii. 


KING    OF  NAVARRE— ALTING.  133 

troversy  between  them,  but  in  his  judgment  they  should  unite 
their  strength  against  the  common  enemy,  and  when  he  was 
overthrown  it  would  be  comparatively  easy  to  harmonize 
on  those  two  points,  and  to  restore  the  Church  of  God  to  its 
pristine  purity  and  splendor."  Henry  Alting*  says,  that 
one  great  object  of  his  writing  his  book  is  to  show  •'  to 
those  into  whose  hands  it  may  come  how  truly  both  the 
Palatinate  Church  (which  has  always  been  regarded  as 
the  mother  of  the  other  churches  of  Germany,)  and  the 
other  Reformed  Churches  with  her,  still  adhere  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  have  by  no  means  departed  from 
the  old  profession  of  fiLiith."  He  then  takes  up  article  by 
article,  claiming  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  the 
Helvetic  Consensus  are  in  unity  with  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession.     Quotino^  the  Second  Article,  (of  ori2:inal 

.  ^  1    •  1  "*•  siting. 

sin,)  he  says:  "  The  Palatinate  Catechism  teaches 
the  same  thing  in  express  words  —  we  are  all  conceived  and 
born  in  sin — and  unless  we  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
are  so  corrupt,  that  we  are  able  to  do  no  good  whatever,  and 
are  inclined  to  all  vices.  It  is  a  calumny  that  the  Reformed 
teach  that  the  children  of  believers  are  born  holy,  and  with- 
out original  sin."  On  the  Third  :  "It  is  a  calumny  that  the 
Reformed  Churches  dissolve  the  personal  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ ;  and  abolish  a  true  and  real  communion  of 
natures  (communicatio  idiomatum)."  In  the  Tenth  Article  (of 
the  Lord's  Supper) :  "  This  is  a  manifest  dissent  of  the  Con- 
fession—  but  not  of  such  a  character  that  it  ought  to  destroy 
the  unity  of  the  faith,  or  distract  with  sects  the  Evangelical 
Christians  —  so  that  the  dissent  is  not  total  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  neither  as  regards  its  principal  thing,  nor 
much  less,  as  regards  a  fundamental  article  of  faith  and  of  the 
Christian  religion."  Of  the  Eleventh  Article  (of  private  abso- 
lution) :  "  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  never  condemns  or  abro- 
gates Confession  and  Private  Absolution,  but  leaves  it  as  a 
thing  indifferent  and  free."  "And  this,"  he  says  in  conclu- 
sion, "  is  a  collation  of  the  Augsburg,  Palatinate,  and  Helve- 
tic Confessions,  in  all  the  articles,  which  most  clearly  exhibits 

I  Exegesis  Log.  et  Theol.  Augustan.  Confess.   Amstel.,  1(348,  4to. 


134  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  demonstrates  their  orthodox  agreement  in  every  article, 
except  the  Tenth,  and  there  the  disagreement  is  not  entire." 

The  iUiistrious  Dr.  Spanheim,  (d.  1701,)  one  of  the  greatest 
Calvinistic  divines  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  his  work 
on  Religious  Controversies,  preparatory  to  a  discussion  of 
the  point  on  which  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  differ,  gives 
a  sketch  of  the  points  on  which  they  agree.  1.  "Both 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists  have  the  same  rule  and  principle, 
to  wit :  Holy  Scripture ;  rejecting  human  and  Papistical 
5.  Spanheim.     tradltlous,    aud    the    decrees   of    the   Council   of 

In  General.  TrCUt.  2.  Both  haVC  tllC  SamC  FUXDAMEXTAL  DOC- 
TRINE as  to  the  cause  of  our  salvation,  both  the  efficient  and 
the  meritorious  cause  ;  as  it  relates  to  the  person,  verity  of  the 
natures  and  their  union,  the  office  and  benefits  of  Christ  our 
Lord;  in  fine,  as  to  the  mode  of  justification,  without  the 
merits  or  causality  of  works.  3.  Both  have  the  same  wor- 
ship, of  the  one  true  and  triune  God,  and  of  Christ  our  Saviour, 
remote  from  all  idolatry,  superstition  or  adoration  of  the  crea- 
ture. 4.  Both  hold  the  same  duties  of  the  Christian  man,  the 
requisites  to  sanctification.  5.  Both  make  the  same  protesta- 
tion against  ]iapal  errors,  even  in  the  matter  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  They  protest  alike  against  all  papal  idolatry,  foul 
superstitions,  Romish  hierarchy,  cruel  tyranny,  impure  celi- 
bacy, and  idle  monkery.  6.  Both  are  under  the  same  obliga- 
tions to  forbear  one  another  in  love,  in  regard  to  those  things 
which  are  built  upon  the  foundation  and  treated  in  different 
ways,  while  the  foundation  itself  remains  unshaken.  7.  Both 
finally  have  the  same  interests,  the  same  motives  for  estab- 
lishing Evangelical  peace,  and  for  sanctioning  if  not  a  concord 
in  all  things,  yet  mutual  toleration  forever.  From  such  a 
toleration  would  flow  a  happier  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  the 
triumph  of  Evangelical  truth,  the  mightier  assault  on  Anti- 
Christ,  and  his  final  fall ;  the  repression  of  tyranny,  the  arrest 
of  Jesuitical  wiles,  the  assertion  of  Protestant  liberty,  the 
removal  of  grievous  scandals,  the  weal  of  the  Church  and  of 
the  State,  and  the  exultation  of  all  good  men. 

'••  1.  Both  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  agree  in  the  Article  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  that  the  spiritual  eating  of  Christ's  body  is 


MORE  SPECIFICALLY.  135 

necessary  to  salvation,  and  to  the  salutary  use  of  the  Sacrament ; 
by  which  eating  is  understood  the  act  of  true  faith,  as  it  directs 
itself  to  the  body  of  Christ  delivered  to  death  for     ^^^^^  speciftc- 
us,  and  his  blood  shed  for  us,  both  apprehended  ^^ny- 
and  personally  applied  with  all  Christ's  merits. 

"II.  In  the  Articles  of  predestination,  grace,  and  free 
WILL,  both  agree:  1.  That  after  the  fall  of  man,  there  were 
no  remaining  powers  for  spiritual  good,  either  to  begin  or  to 
coraplete :  2.  That  the  whole  matter  of  the  salvation  of  man 
depends  alone  on  the  will,  good  pleasure,  and  grace  of  God. 

3.  i^either  approves  the  Pelagian  doctrine,  but  each  condemns 
it,  and  both  reject  Semi-Pelagianism. 

"  III.  In  the  Article  of  the  person  of  Christ,  both  agree : 
1.  That  the  divine  and  human  natures  are  truly  and  personally 
united,  so  that  Christ  is  God  and  man  in  unity  of  person  ;  and 
that  this  union  is  formed,  without  confusion  or  change,  indivisibly 
and  inseparably:  2.  That  the  names  of  the  natures  are  reciprocally 
used;  truly  and  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  words,  God  is  man, 
man  is  God  ;  the  p^roperties  of  each  of  the  natures  are  affirmed 
truly  and  really,  of  the  whole  person  in  the  concrete ;  but 
according  to  that  nature  to  which  those  properties  are  peculiar, 
which  is  called  by  theologians,  communicatio  idiomatum  (com- 
munion of  properties.)  3.  That  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
is  not  intrinsically  omnipotent  nor  omnisdent ;  that  in  the  union, 
the  natures  conjoined  remain  distinct,  and  the  essential  proper- 
ties of  each  are  secure.  4.  That  the  human  nature  was  lifted 
to  suprerae  glory,  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  5.  Both 
reject  the  heresies  of  IS^estorius,  Eutyches,  Marcion,  Arius, 
Plotinus,  Paul  of  Samosata,  and  their  like. 

"  IV.  In  the  Article  of  holy  baptiSxII,  both  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists  agree:  1.  Hhd^^t  infants  are  to  be  baptized:  2.  That 
the  object  of  baptism  is  that  they  may  be  inserted  into  Christ, 
and  spiritually  regenerated :  3.  That  baptism  is  necessary,  yet 
not  absolutely,  but  so  that  the  despising  of  baptism  is  damning : 

4.  That  infants  have  the  capacity  of  receiving  regenerating 
grace,  and  5.  That  these  things  pertain  to  the  essentials  of  this 
Sacrament. 

"  y.  As  to  the  ceremonies,  especially  as  regards  exorcism  in 


136  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  baptismal  formula,  both  are  agreed :  1.  That  it  is  not  to 
be  imagined  that  an  infant  is  corporeally  possessed  by  Satan : 

2.  That  the  rite  of  exorcism  may  not  be  employed  for  any 
other  end  than  to  signify  the  habitual  inherence  of  original  sin: 

3.  That  these  formulae  oi  exorcism  may  be  omitted,  and  special 
prayers  be  substituted  therefor." 

It  may  be  well  to  note  that  the  practice  of  exorcism  even 
with  tliese  safeguards  and  limitations,  never  was  universal  in 
the  Lutheran  Church  ;  never  was  regarded  as  essential  by  those 
who  practised  it,  always  had  strong  opposers  among  the  sound- 
est men  in  the  Church,  and  long  ago  fell  into  general  disuse. 
It  never  could  have  been  styled,  without  qualification,  a  Lu- 
theran usage.  All  that  could  with  truth  have  been  said,  at 
any  time,  was  that  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  or  that  country^ 
retained  it  in  the  exercise  of  church  liberty,  among  things 
indifferent.  Lutheran  unity  is  based  upon  heartfelt  cousent  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  the  essential  parts  of  the 
administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  consistency,  as  Lu- 
therans, requires  no  more  than  that  we  should  maintain  and 
defend  these.  So  much  it  does  demand,  but  it  demands  no 
more. 

Claude,^  one  of  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  French 
Eeformed  Church,  says  :  "Those  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
(who  are  called  Lutherans)  are  in  difference  with  us  only 
about  the  point  of  the  real  presence,  and  about  some  questions 
of  the  schools  which  we  cannot  yet  impute  to  their  whole 
body ;  and  as  for  the  rest,  they  reject  with  us  the  invocation 
of  saints,  religious  worship  of  images,  human  satisfactions, 
indul2:ences,  purgatory,  worship  of  relics,  the  pub- 
he  service  in  an  unknown  tongue,  the  merit  oi 
good  works,  transubstantiation,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  the  opinion  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
church,  and  the  principle  of  blind  obedience  to  the  decisions 
of  councils.  They  acknowledge  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  only 
rule  of  laith  ;  they  carefully  practise  the  reading  of  them ; 
they  own  their  sufiiciency  ;  they  believe  their  authority,  inde- 

*  Defence  of  the  Ilefoimation,  1G73,  translated  by  T.  B.,  London,  1815,  vol    i., 
p.  2f»l. 


THE   CHURCH  OF    GENEVA  — PIC TETUS.  137 

pendent  of  that  of  the  Church ;  they  distinctly  explain  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  and  that  of  the  use  of  the  Law,  and 
its  distinction  from  the  Gospel ;  they  do  not  conceive  amiss  of 
the  nature  of  faith,  and  that  of  good  works  ;  and  as  for  popu- 
lar superstitions,  we  can  scarce  see  any  reign  among  them." 

John  Alphonsus  Turretin  *  has  collected  a  great  body  of 
witnesses  whose  testimony  tends  to  the  same  gen-    ^  ^  Turretin 
eral  point :  the  possibility  and  desirableness  of  con- 
cord between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed.     He  argues 
for  the  same  position  at  great  length,  on  the  same  general 
grounds  with  the  divines  we  have  quoted. 

The  pastors  of  the  church  at  Geneva,  and  the  Professors  in 
its  Academy,  in  their  letter  to  Wake,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  (1719,)  say :  "  As  regards  our  Lu-  J;^^,|;""''  "^ 
theran  brethren,  we  doubt  not  that  you  are  aware 
what  exhibitions  of  love,  what  ardent  desire  {ciqndinem)  of  hav- 
ing concord  with  them  our  Church  has  shown  at  all  times." 

PiCTETUS  (d.  1724)  thus  addresses  the  theologians  of  the 
Auo-sburo;  Confession: f  "Let  the  names  of  Luther-     „  „.  , , 

G  o  ^  9.   Pictetus. 

ans  and  Calvinists  be  blotted  out,  let  altar  no  more 
be  set  up  against  altar.  0  happy  day,  in  which  all  your 
churches  and  ours  shall  embrace  each  other,  and  with  right 
hands  joined  and  with  souls  united  we  shall  coalesce  into  one 
body,  {in,  unuvi  corpus  coalescimus^)  with  the  benediction  of 
God,  the  plaudits  of  angels,  the  exultation  of  holy  men." 

The  object  of  these  citations  is  to  show  that,  judged  by  candid 
and  great  men  who  are  not  of  her  communion,  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  pure  in  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
faith,  a  Church  to  be  revered  and  loved  even  by  those  who 
cannot  in  all  respects  unite  in  her  Confession. 

According  to  the  simple  and  sublime  principles  of  the  Xew 
Testament,  accepted  by  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  true 
church  unity  rests  upon  the  common  acceptance  of  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Gospel  in  the  same  sense,  and  in 
agreement  in  the  Scriptiiral  essentials  of  the  administration 
of  the  Sacraments.     On  the  second  point  we  are  in  unity  with 

*  Nubes  Testium,  Genevae,  1719,  4to. 

•j-  Dissert,  de  Couseus.  ac  Disseiis.  iat.  Reform,  et  Aug.  Couf.  Fratres,  1697. 


138  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

all  Evangelical  and  Protestant  bodies  except  the  Baptists,  and 

with  them  we  here  fail  of  unity  not  because  of  their 

Lu^henmc'hurch  practice  of  imnicrsion,  which,  as  a  free  mode,  might 

tootiKrChii.tau  j^g  allowed  simply  as  a  matter  of  preference,  but  in 

communions.  i      .  t  •  n    '  • ,  t      • 

regard  to  their  doctrine  of  its  necessity,  and  m 
that  they  deviate  from  the  Scripture  essential  of  haptism  as  to 
its  proper  subjects,  excluding  from  it  children,* to  whom  God 
has  given  it.  In  regard  to  the  externals  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  Lutheran  Church  has  nothing  to  prevent  unity  with  the 
rest  of  the  Evangelical  Protestant  world.  To  her,  questions 
of  kneeling,  sitting,  standing,  of  leavened  or  unleavened 
bread,  or  of  its  thickness,  are  questions  dismissed  from  the 
sphere  of  essentials  into  that  of  the  liberty  of 
the  Church.  They  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
essence  of  unity.  The  Presbyterian  is  none  the  less  one  with 
us  because  he  sits  at  the  table  while  we  kneel  or  stand,  unless 
he  construes  into  a  matter  of  conscience  a  thing  in  itself 
indifferent,  neither  enjoined  nor  forbidden.  Luther*  says: 
''Fix  steadfastly  on  this  sole  question.  What  is  that  which 
makes  a  Christian  ?  Permit  no  question  to  be  put  on  a  level 
with  this.  If  any  one  brings  up  a  matter,  ask  him  at  once : 
'  Do  these  things  also  make  a  man  a  Christian  ? '  If  he  answer, 
L^o,  let  them  all  go."  If  Luther's  life  seemed  largely  one  of 
warfare,  it  was  not  that  he  did  not  love  peace  much,  but  that 
he  loved  truth  more.  He  could  not  take  Zwingle's  hand  at 
Marburg,  (1529,)  because  that  would  have  meant  that  the  great 
point  which  divided  them  was  not  an  article  of  faith,  and  Luther 
believed  in  his  inmost  heart  that  it  was  ;  but  he  prepared  and 
sio-ned  his  name  to  the  Declaration  then  set  forth,  ''  that  both 
sides,  to  the  extent  to  which  the  conscience  of  either  could 
bear  it,  were  bound  to  exercise  mutual  charity  —  both  were 
bound  earnestly  and  unremittingly  to  implore  Ahnighty  God, 
that  through  his  Spirit  he  would  vouchsafe  to  confirm  us  in 
the  true  doctrine."  The  Wittenberg  Concord,  between  Lu- 
ther, Melanchthon,  and  others,  upon  one  side,  and   Capito, 

*  Epistle  to  the  Strasburgers,  (1524,)  occasioned  by  Carlstadt's  doctrine  of  tlie 
Lord's  Supper,  and  his  fanaticism.  Briefe,  De  Wette,  ii.  514,  Leipz.,  xix.  225. 
Walch.,  XV.  2444. 


TRUE   UNITY.  139 

Bucer,  and  their  associates,  (1536,)  on  the  other,  filled  the  heart 
of  Luther  with  pure  jo3\  When  no  principle  was  endangered 
Luther  could  be  as  gentle  as  Melanchthon.  When  the  intelli- 
gence reached  Luther  that  the  Swiss  had  accepted  the  Witten- 
berg Concord,  he  wrote  to  Meyer,  the  burgomaster  of  Basel 
(February  17,1537):  ''I  have  marked  with  the  greatest  joy 
your  earnestness  in  promoting  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  God 
grant  us  increasing  grace  that  we  may  harmonize  more  and 
more  in  a  true,  pure  unity,  in  a  sure  accordant  doctrine  and 
view  .  .  that  to  this  end  we  forgive  one  another,  and  I^.  B.," 
(the  nota  bene  is  Luther's,)  "bear  with  one  another  as  God  the 
Father  forgives  us  and  bears  with  us  in  Christ.  We  must  for- 
get the  strifes  and  smarts  of  the  past,  and  strive  for  unity  with 
patience,  meekness,  kindly  colloquies,  but  most  of  all  with 
heartfelt  prayer  to  God,  the  Father,  the  Father  of  all  concord 
and  love.""^  On  December  1,  of  the  same  year,  Luther  wrote  an 
official  reply  to  the  letter  of  the  representatives  of  the  Swiss 
Church.  He  addresses  them  as  "  venerable,  dear  sirs,  and 
friends,"  and  Avishes  them  "  grace  and  peace  in  Christ  our 
Lord  and  Saviour,"  and  goes  on  to  say :  "  I  rejoice  that  the 
old  bitterness  and  suspicion,  between  us,  have  been  laid  aside, 
aitd  that  you  propose,  in  great  earnestness,  to  promote  concord. 
God  himself  will  graciously  consummate  a  work  so  well  begun. 
It  cannot  indeed  but  be  that  so  great  a  schism  will  not  heal 
easily,  and  leave  no  scar.  There  will  be  some,  both  with  you 
and  with  us,  who  will  not  be  pleased  with  this  Concord,  but 
will  regard  it  with  suspicion.  But  if  there  be  earnestness  and 
diligent  effort  on  both  sides,  by  God's  grace,  the  opposition  will 
die  out,  (zu  Tod  blut,)  and  the  raging  waters  will  be  calmed. 
Certainly,  if  strife  and  clamor  could  accomplish  anything,  we 
have  had  enough  of  them.  God  is  my  witness  that  nothing 
shall  be  wanting  on  my  part  to  promote  concord.  This  dis- 
cord has  never  benefited  me  or  others,  but  has  done  great  mis- 
chief. 1^0  good  ever  was,  or  ever  is  to  be  hoped  from  it."  On 
the  Lord's  Supper,  on  w^hich  the  Concord  had  seemed  to  embody 
a  substantial  agreement,  Luther,  in  a  few  words,  shows  how 
greatly  he  had  been  misunderstood,  and  then  adds :  "  Yet,  as 

*  Luther's  Briefe,   De  Wette,  v.  54,  Walch.  xxi.  1:282. 


140  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

I  said  before,  where  we  in  this  point  (hierin)  have  not  come 
fully  to  an  understanding,  (wir  nicht  giinzlich  verst'dnden,)  the 
best  thing  for  the  present  (itzt)  is  that  we  be  friendly  to  each 
other,  that  we  put  the  best  construction  on  each  others'  acts, 
(dasbeste  zu  einander  versehen,)  till  the  mire  (Gliim)  that  has 
been  stirred  up  settles.  On  our  side,  and  I  speak  especially  for 
my  own  person,  (sonderlich  mein  person  halben,)  we  will,  from 
the  heart,  dismiss  all  nnkindness  and  regard  you  with  confi- 
dence and  love.  A\^hen  we  have  done  all  in  our  power,  we  still 
need  God's  great  help  and  counsel.  We  need  not  indulge  the 
disposition  to  suspect  each  other,  and  stir  up  strife,  for  Satan, 
w4io  hates  us  and  the  Concord,  will  find  his  own,  to  thrown  trees 
and  rocks  on  the  way.  Let  it  be  our  part  to  give  each  other 
our  hearts  and  hands  (die  herzen  und  hand  einander  reichen) 
to  hold  fast  with  equal  firmness,  lest  the  after  state  of  things 
be  worse  than  the  first.  May  the  Holy  Ghost  fuse  our  hearts 
together  in  Christian  love  and  purpose,  and  purge  away  all  the 
dross  of  suspicion,  to  the  glory  of  His  sacred  name,  and  to  the 
salvation  of  many  souls."  * 

A  similar  spirit  is  breathed  in  Luther's  letter  of  reply  to  the 
Council  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Switzerland  held  in  Zurich, 
1528:  "I  beseech  you  that  you  go  on,  as  you  have  begun,  to 
aid  in  consummating  this  divine  work,  of  the  peace  and  unity 
of  the  Christian  Church,  as  I  doubt  not  ye  are  ready  with  all 
joyfulness  to  do."t  To  the  Council  at  Strasburg,  Luther  had 
written  (May  29,  1536) :  ''  There  shall  be  nothing  lacking  on 
my  part,  whether  of  act  or  of  suftering,  which  can  contribute  to  a 
genuine,  thorough,  steadfast  unity,  for  what  are  the  results  of 
the  dissensions  of  the  Churches,  experience,  alas  !  has  taught 
us."t 

Luther's  cordial  spirit  tow^ard  the  Waldenses,  his  fervent 
appeals  to  them  when  it  was  rumored  that  they  were  about  mak- 
ing peace  with  Rome,  his  noble  witness  to  his  fellowship  with 

*  Luther's  Briefe,  De  Wette,  v.  83:  Leipz.  xxi.  107.  Walcli.  xvii.  2504.  In 
Latin:   Hospinian.  H.  S.  i.  275.  Buddeus:   258. 

f  L.'s  Briefe,  De  Wette,  v.  120.  Leipz.  xxi.  110.  Walch.  xvii.  2617.  Latin: 
Hospin.  H.  S.  ii.  164.  Buddeus,  292. 

+  Briefe,  De  Wette,  iv.  002.  Leipz.  xxi.  106.  Walch,  xvii.  2566.  Latin:  Bud- 
deus, 251. 


LUTEEEANISM   NOT   UIGII- CHURCIIISM.         141 

Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  reveal  his  large  catholic  heart. 
Nor  even  in  ihe  ardor  of  his  bitterest  conliict  with  Rome  did 
he  ignore  the  truly  Christian  elements  and  great  blessings 
which  had  been  perpetuated  in  the  Church  of  the  West.  He 
distinguished  between  Popery  in  the  .Church  of  Rome,  and 
the  Church  of  Rome  herself,  and  between  the  false  living  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Roman  Church,  and  her  ancient,  true  rep- 
resentatives. From  the  true  ancient  Roman  Church  as  known 
in  the  writings  of  the  earliest  Fathers,  neither  Luther  nor  the 
Lutheran  Church  ever  separated.  It  was  the  true  old  Roman 
Church  which  in  the  Reformation  revived,  over  against  the 
modern  corrupted  Church  of  Rome.  ISTot  destruction,  not  revolu- 
tion, but  reformation,  was  that  at  which  Luther  aimed,  and  re- 
formation is  not  revolution,  but  the  great  preventive  of  it.  If 
Europe  passed  through  revolutionary  convulsions  in  and  after 
the  sixteenth  century,  it  was  not  because  Reformation  was 
accepted,  but  because  it  was  resisted. 

Against  the  Iligh-Churchism,  which  makes  dividing  w^alls 
of  forms,  ceremonies,  modes  of  government,  the  Lutheran 
Church  enters  a  living  protest.  "  AVhere,"  says  Luther,  "  the 
Gospel  is  rightly  and  purely  preached,  there  must  be  a  Holy 
Christian  Church."*  ''The  Holy  Church  Universal  is  pre- 
eminently a  fellowship  whose  internal  bond  is  faith  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart,  and  whose  outward  token  is  the  pure 
Word  and  the  incorrupt  Sacraments.  The  Lutheranisn.not 
Church  is  a  communion  of  saints,  to  wit,  the  assem-  "i.^i'-churcinsm. 
bly  of  saints  who  are  in  the  fellowship  of  the  same  Gospel  or 
doctrine,  and  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit,  who  renews,  sanctifies, 
and  governs  the  heart."  f  The  unchanging  marks  of  the 
Church  are  "  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Sacra- 
ments. That  Church  which  has  these  is  alone  properly  the 
pillar  of  the  truth,  because  it  retains  the  pure  Gospel,  and  as 
St.  Paul  saith,  the  foundation,  that  is  the  true  knowledge  of 
Christ,  and  true  faith  in  him." 

With  every  external  human  thing  alike  there  is  no  unity  if 
the  parts  of  a  communion  are  alien  in  faitli.  On  the  other 
hand,  with  every  external  human  thing  diverse,  there  is  unity 

^  AVerke,  Jena,  vi.  109,  (IU;3.)  f  Apology,  (Art.  IV.) 


142  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

if  there  be  harmony  in  faith.  Our  Church  desires  uniformity 
not  as  if  it  were  itself  unity,  or  could  be  made  a  substitute  for 
it,  but  because  it  illustrates  unity,  and  is  one  of  its  natural 
tendencies  and  its  safeguard.  If  there  be  a  High-Churchisni 
genuinely  Lutheran,  it  is  a  very  different  thing  from  that 
which  bears  that  name  in  other  churches.  The  Lutheran 
Church  does  claim  that  it  is  God's  truth  which  she  confesses, 
and  by  logical  necessity  regards  the  deviations  from  the  doctrines 
of  the  Confession  as  deviations  from  divine  truth,  but  she  does 
not  claim  to  be  the  whole  Church.  ''  The  Christian  Church 
and  Christian  holiness,  both  name  and  thing,  are  the  common 
possession  of  all  churches  and  Christians  in  the  world."*  It 
is  enough  for  her  to  know  that  she  is  a  genuine  part  of  it,  and 
she  can  rejoice,  and  does  rejoice,  that  the  Saviour  she  loves  has 
his  own  true  followers  in  every  part  of  Christendom.  She  says : 
,.,    ,..       ,  "The  Catholic  rChristianI  Church  consists  of  men 

Liberality   and  L.  J 

Charity  of  the  scattcrcd  throughout  the  whole  world,  from  the 
Lutheran  Church,  ^^yi^^g  ^f  ^he  suu  to  thc  goiug  dowu  thercof. "  f  She 
unchurches  none  of  other  names,  even  though  they  may  be 
unsound.  It  is  not  her  business  to  do  this.  They  have  their 
own  Master,  to  whom  they  stand  or  fall.  She  protests  against 
error ;  she  removes  it  by  spiritual  means  from  her  own  midst ; 
but  she  judges  not  those  who  are  without.  God  is  her  judge 
and  theirs,  and  to  Him  she  commits  herself  and  them.  Our 
Church  confesses  "  that  among  those  who  are  upon  the  true 
foundation  there  are  many  weak  ones,  who  build  upon  the 
foundation  perishing  stubble,  that  is,  empty  human  notions  and 
opinions,  and  yet  because  they  do  not  overthroAv  the  founda- 
tion, are  still  Christians,  and  their  faults  may  be  forgiven  them, 
or  even  be  emeuded.":j:  "  An  error,"  says  Luther,  "  however 
great  it  may  be,  neither  can  be  called  heresy,  nor  is  heresy, 
unless  it  be  held  and  defended  obstinately  as  right."  "Erring 
makes  no  heretics  ;  but  the  defending  and  protecting  error  with 
stiffness  of  neck,  does."  "There  never  has  been  a  heresy 
which  did  not  also  affirm  some  truth.  Wherefore  we  must  not 
deny  the  truth  (it  contains)  on  account  of  the  falsehood  (it 
mixes  with  it\"  §     "  Heretics  not  merely  err,  but  refuse  to  be 

*  Lutlier.  t  Apology,  Art.  IV.  %  Apology,  Art.  IV. 

I  Werke,   Walch.  xxi.  120;  xviii.  1771  ;   iii.   2204. 


LIBERALITY  AND    CHARITY.  143 

taught ;  they  defend  their  error  as  right,  and  fight  against 
known  truth,  and  against  their  own  consciences  —  self-willed 
and  consciously  they  remain  in  their  error."  ''It  is  not  right, 
and  I  am  truly  sorry  that  these  miserable  people  are  murdered, 
burnt,  and  executed.  Every  one  should  be  left  to  believe  what 
he  will,  (man  sollte  ja  einen  jeglichen  lassen  glauben  was  er 
wollte.)  How  easy  is  it  to  err  1  Let  us  ward  against  them 
with  the  Scripture,  not  w^ith  fire."  * 

It  is  not  charity  to  bear  with  others  because  the  differences 
between  us  are  trifling  ;  it  is  charity  to  bear  with  them  although 
the  differences  are  great.  Charity  does  not  cover  error ;  because 
error  is  the  daughter  of  sin,  and  charity  is  the  daughter  of 
God.  Charity  covers  errorists  so  far  as  she  may  without  pal- 
liating their  errors,  for  the  errorist,  as  a  man,  is  God's  child. 
Charity  is  the  reflex  of  love  to  God,  and  our  Church,  there- 
fore, is  loyal  to  his  truth  even  when  she  is  most  tender  to  those 
who  err  from  that  truth.  If  there  have  been  bigoted,  inquisi- 
torial, and  harsh  judges  of  others  who  bear  her  name,  it  is  not 
from  her  they  derived  these  peculiarities,  and  such  men  know 
not  the  spirit  they  are  of.  Kever  are  great  systems  more  cruelly 
misrepresented  than  by  some  who  claim  to  be  their  friends. 
While,  therefore,  many  of  the  pretended  representations  of  Lu- 
theran theology  have  been  gross  misrepresentations,  they  have 
not  always  been  the  result  of  ignorance,  or  of  malice,  but  have 
proceeded  from  nominal  friends,  sometimes  from  timidity  of 
character,  and  sometimes  from  a  harsh,  fierce  spirit,  which 
delights  to  aggravate  differences,  and  make  them  hopeless.  This 
aggravation  has  been  made  by  enemies  from  hatred  of  the  sys- 
tem. They  wished  to  excite  disgust  at  it.  But  the  same  sort 
of  representation  has  also  been  made  by  a  different  class,  who 
wxre  moved  by  hatred  to  other  systems,  quite  as  much  as  by 
love  to  the  system  they  espoused.  They  considered  the  Lu- 
theran system  not  only  as  true,  but  as  in  such  sense  having  all 
the  truth,  that  no  other  church  has  the  least  share  of  it.  They 
were  not  satisfied  with  showing  that  others  are  less  scrip- 
tural than  ourselves,  or  in  important  respects  depart  from  the 
teachings  of  the  Word,  but  t\\Qy  were  determined  to  show  that 

*Werke,  W.ilch.  xvii    2G24. 


144  CONSERVATIVE   KEF ORMATIOK. 

they  are  scriptural  in  nothing.  Such  hopeless  errorists  are  not 
sound,  on  the  showing  of  these  polemics,  even  on  the  general 
truths  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  :  they  are  douhters  of  the  very 
elements  of  Christianity :  they  are  on  the  way  to  Atheism, 
only  kept  from  running  into  it  hy  their  fear  or  hy  their  ina- 
bility to  follow  their  premises  to  their  fair  conclusions.  It  is 
true,  the  most  extravas-ant   of  this  school  in  the   Lutheran 

I  CD 

Church  have  been  far  outstripped  in  their  exclusiveness  by  sec- 
tarians of  different  kinds :  but  this  is  no  apology  for  them. 
A  Church  so  large-hearted,  so  trul}^  catholic  in  her  genius,  and 
so  mild  in  her  spirit  as  is  the  Lutheran,  expects  better  things 
of  her  children.  As  she  does  not  rear  them  with  a  sectarian 
bias,  she  cannot  allow  them  to  plead  sectarian  excesses  as  an 
offset  to  their  own.  In  treating  of  the  doctrines  of  such  a 
Church,  men  should  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with  them, 
deeply  convinced  of  their  truth,  and  transformed  by  their 
power ;  and  men  of  this  stamp  will  develop  them  not  in  a 
little,  sectarian  spirit,  but  with  a  largeness  and  nobleness  of 
mind,  which  will  attest  the  moral  power  of  the  truth  they 
hold.  If  our  Church  ever  could  have  been  moved  to  a  dif- 
ferent spirit,  it  would  have  been  during  those  exasperating  con- 
troversies with  open  enemies,  and  still  more  with  false  breth- 
ren, which  led  to  the  preparation  of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 
Yet,  in  the  Preface  to  the  book  in  which  that  Formula  was 
embodied,  the  Electors,  Princes,  and  Orders  of  the 
SnTZTr-  Empire  thus  declare  themselves :  -  It  is  by  no 
secution  of  other  mcaus  our  wiU  and  intent,  in  the  condemnation  of 

churches.  ,    .  .  t  .  t  i  i 

false  and  impious  doctrines,  to  condemn  those  who 
err  from  simplicity,  and  who  do  not  blaspheme  the  truth  of 
God's  Word.  Still  less  do  we  wish  to  condemn  ichole  churches 
either  within  the  bounds  of  the  German  Empire  or  beyond  it, 
...  for  we  entertain  no  doubt  whatever  (ganz  und  gar  keinen 
zweifel  machen)  that  many  pious  and  good  people  are  to  be 
found  in  those  churches  also,  which  to  this  time  have  not 
thought  in  all  respects  with  us  ;  persons  who  w^alk  in  the  sim- 
plicity of  their  hearts,  not  clearly  understanding  the  points 
involved,  .  .  .  and  w^ho,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  if  they  were  rightly 
instructed  in  the  doctrine,  through  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 


OFFICIAL    PROTEST.  146 

Spirit,  into  the  unerring  truth  of  God's  Word,  would  consent 
with  us.  .  .  .  And  on  all  the  theologians  and  ministers  of  the 
Church  is  the  duty  specially  incumbent  to  admonish,  and  teach 
out  of  God's  Word  with  moderation  those  who  err  from  the 
truth  through  simplicity  or  ignorance,  lest  the  blind  leading 
the  blind,  both  perish.  AVherefore,  in  this  our  writing,  in  the 
presence  of  Almighty  God  and  before  the  whole  Church,  we 
testify  that  it  was  never  our  purpose,  by  this  Christian  Formula 
of  conciliation,  to  create  trouble  or  peril  for  those  poor  op- 
pressed Christians  who  are  now  enduring  persecution.  .  .  .  For, 
as  moved  by  Christian  love,  we  long  ago  entered  into  the  com- 
panionship of  suffering  with  them,  so  do  we  abhor  and  from 
our  soul  detest  the  persecution  and  most  grievous  tyranny  which 
has  been  directed  against  these  hapless  persons.  In  no  degree 
or  respect  do  we  consent  to  this  shedding  of  innocent  blood, 
which  doubtless,  in  the  awful  judgment  of  God,  and  before  the 
tribunal  of  Christ,  will  be  strictly  demanded  at  the  hands  of 
their  persecutors."  This  plea  and  protest  of  the  Lutheran 
Princes  and  Estates  was  made  specially  in  behalf  of  the 
Huguenots,  the  French  Calvinists,  whose  bitter  sufferings  had 
culminated  in  the  frightful  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew, 
(August  24,  1572.) 

The  Princes  and  Estates  add,  to  show  that  their  charity  was 
a  heavenly  love,  and  not  the  indolent  passiveness  of  laxity  in 
doctrine :  "  Our  intent  has  been  .  .  .  that  no  other  doctrine 
than  that  which  is  founded  in  God's  Word,  and  is  contained  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apology,  accepted  in  their 
genuine  sense,  should  be  set  forth  in  our  lands,  provinces, 
schools,  and  churches,  ...  in  order  that  among  our  posterity 
also  the  pure  doctrine  and  confession  of  the  faith  may  be  pre- 
served and  propagated,  through  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
until  the  glorious  coming  of  our  only  Eedeemer  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ."  These  are  words  to  stir  the  inmost  heart.  Alike 
in  their  revelation  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  they  are  words 
without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  churches.  Where,  among 
Confessions,  but  in  the  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  is 
there  so  tender,  so  apologetic,  a  reference  to  those  differing  in 
faith  ?     Where,  but  in  it,  is  there  so  noble  a  confession  of  the 

10 


146  CONSERVATIVE    EEFORMATIOX. 

fellowship  of  saints,  and  so  hopeful  an  expression  of  confidence 
in  the  better  mind  and  sincerity  of  those  who  err ;  where  is 
there  so  brave,  earnest,  and  heartfelt  an  allusion  to  the  trials 
of  those  of  another  communion  ?  so  sublime  a  protest  against 
their  persecution,  and  consequently  against  all  persecution  for 
conscience'  sake?  God  grant  that  the  spirit  of  these  holy 
men  may  be  perpetuated  in  the  church  which  they  so  signally 
served  in  their  generation,  and  that  their  devout  aspirations 
may  be  fulfilled,  that  when  the  Son  of  Man  cometh,  he  may 
find  faith  on  the  earth  still  shedding  its  holy  light  in  the  midst 
of  those  whose  fathers  loved  him  so  purely,  loved  his  Truth  so 
fervently ;  and  yet,  like  their  Master,  refused  to  call  down  fire 
from  heaven  on  those  who  followed  not  with  them. 

In  aflinity  with  this  spirit,  a  great  living  theologian  in  Ger- 
many has  said :  "I  think  I  may  say,  I  am  not  conscious  oi belong- 
ing to  anyparty^  hwt  have  followed  truth  alone.  In  the  path- 
way of  my  search  for  truth,  I  was  led  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
the  truth,  and  by  him  was  led  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  w^hich 
I  have  held,  and  do  now  hold  to  be  not  the  only  true  church, 

BUT  THE    PILLAR    OF    THE    TRUTH    IN    THE    CHURCH    UNIVERSAL.      I 

know,  moreover,  that  he  only  who  has  received  the  spirit  of  this 
Church,  w^ho  stands  immovably  on  the  foundation  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Prophets,  w^ho  lives  in  the  fixed  conviction  that  the 
Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  in  its  very  essence  in  con- 
sonance wdth  the  pure  gospel,  and  w^io  yet  has  felt  the  influ- 
ence of  the  past  three  centuries,  I  know  that  he  only  has  an 
oecumenical  mind  and  catholic  heart  for  that  which  is  trite  in  all 
churches  ;  he  only  has  an  ear  for  the  harmonies  of  truth  which 
still  ring  out  from  the  dissonances  of  the  countless  varieties 
of  the  notes  of  our  times.  I  have  never  shrunk  from  the 
reproach  of  orthodoxy,  so  far  as  its  cause  is  the  cause  of 
Christ,  and  yet  I  have  constantly  said  that  I  could  not  be 
the  defender  of  those  w^ho  seek  in  the  faith  of  the  Church 
that  only  w^hich  is  old,  fixed,  and  finished.  With  justice,  we 
withdraw  our  confidence  from  a  theological  writer  who  vio- 
lently rushes  from  one  extreme  to  another.  But  can  we,  on 
the  other  hand,  trust  a  theologian  of  whom  we  know  that, 
having  once  taken  a  position,  it  is  entirely  impossible  for  him 


CONTROVERSIES.  147 

forever  after  to  doubt  its  correctness.  Truth  gives  itself  only 
to  him  who  seeks  it,  but  he  who  seeks  it  will  not  find  it,  if  he 
can  let  nothing  go." 

The  life  of  a  Church  may  be  largely  read  in  its  controversies. 
As  the  glory  or  shame  of  a  nation  is  read  upon  its  battle-fields 
which  tells  for  what  it  perilled  the  lives  of  its  sons,  so  may  the 
glory  or  shame  of  a  Church  be  determined  when  we  know 
what  it  fou2:ht  for  and  what  it  fought  a2:ainst : 


of  tlie    Lutheran 


how  much  it  valued  what  it  believed  to  be  truth  •, 
what  was  the  truth  it  valued;  how  much  it  did, 
and  how  much  it  suffered  to  maintain  that  truth,  and  what  was 
the  issue  of  its  struggles  and  sacrifices.  Tested  in  all  these 
ways,  the  record  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  incomparably  glo- 
rious. It  has  contended  for  great  truths  at  great  sacrifices, 
and  in  every  conflict  in  which  it  has  borne  a  part,  truth  has 
ultimately  been  victorious.  A  Church  which  contends  for 
nothing,  either  has  lost  the  truth,  or  has  ceased  to  love  it. 
Warfare  is  painful,  but  they  w^hose  errors  create  the  necessity 
for  it  are  responsible  for  all  its  miseries.  At  times,  especially 
in  the  early  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  there  arose  con- 
troversies, the  most  important  of  which  were :  1,  the  Philip- 
istic,  arising  from  the  excessive  desire  of  Melanchthon  and  his 
school  to  harmonize  with  the  Roman  Catholics  and  the  Re- 
formed;  2,  the  Antinomistic  (1537-40,1556),  caused  by  the 
effort  of  Agricola  to  introduce  what  has  been  called  a  "  Pela- 
gianism  of  the  Gospel ; "  3,  the  Osiandrian  (1550 -'67),  so  called 
from  Osiander,  who  confounded  sanctification  with  justifica- 
tion;  4,  the  Adiaphoristic  (1548 -'55);  5,  the  Majoristic 
(1551 -'52),  on  the  necessity  of  good  works  ;  6,  the  Synergistic 
(1555  -'67),  on  the  co-operation  of  the  human  will  in  conver- 
sion, in  the  course  of  which  Flacius  spoke  of  original  sin  as 
substantial,  not  accidental ;  7,  the  Crypto-Calvinistic  (1552-'74). 
The  view  of  Calvin  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  supper  was  so  much 
profounder  than  that  of  Zwingli,  (which  Calvin  strongly  con- 
demned,) and  indeed  in  some  aspects  so  Lutheranizing  that  Me- 
lanchthon, without  abandoning  the  Lutheran  view,  thought 
that  Calvin's  might  be  tolerated,  and  the  points  of  difference 
ignored  in  the  Confessions.     This  position  was  assailed  by  the 


148  CONSEEVATIVE    BEFORMATIOX. 

Stricter  Lutherans.  In  the  course  of  controversy  the  more 
general  questions  connected  with  the  person  of  Christ  were 
discussed.  All  these  questions  were  settled  in  the  ''  Form  of 
Concord,"  (1577.)  So  deeply  was  the  church  grounded  in  fun- 
damental unity  of  faith,  that  none  of  these  controversies,  vio- 
lent as  some  of  them  were,  were  able  to  rend  it  into  denomina- 
tional fragments.  The  subsequent  controversies  have  been  on 
syncretism  (1655),  pietism  (1G86),  and  rationalism  (1751),  and 
those  connected  with  the  Union  and  the  revival  of  Lutheran- 
ism  (from  1817,  Harms's  Theses^  to  the  present  hourj. 

Theological  science  flourished  in  the  sixteenth  century  most 
of  all  in  the  universities  of  Wittenberg,  Tiibingen,  Strasbourg, 
Marburg,  and  Jena.  To  this  era  belong  Luther,  ^lelanchthon, 
riacius,  Chemnitz,  Brentius,  and  Chytrseus.  In  the  seventeenth 
century  occur  the  names  of  Glassius,  Pfeifter,  Erasmus  Schmidt, 
Hakspan,  Gier,  Seb.  Schmidt,  Calovius ;  in  dogmatics,  Hutter, 
Gerhard,  Quenstedt,  Calixtus,  Hunnius  ;  in  church  history, 
Eeelienberg,  Ittig,  Sagittarius,  Seckendorf,  and  Arnold.  In 
the  eighteenth  century,  Loscher  closes  the  ancient  school ;  and 
the  Pietistic  school,  practical  rather  than  scientific,  is  illustrated 
by  Lange.  The  Conservative  Pietistic,  avoiding  the  faults  of  the 
others  and  combining  their  virtues,  embraces  HoUazius,  Starck, 
Euddeus,  Cyprian,  J.  C.  Wolf,  Weismann,  Deyling,  Carpzov, 
J.  11.  and  C.  B.  Michaelis,  J.  G.  Walch,  Pfati',  Mo^sheim,  Ben- 
gel,  and  Crusius.  The  school  which  treated  theology  after  the 
philosophical  method  of  Wolf  numbers  S.  J.  Baumgarten,  Rein- 
beck,  and  Carpzov ;  to  the  transitional  school  belong  Ernesti, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Semler,  who  prepared  the  way  for  rationalism, 
and  ZoUner ;  the  principal  members  of  the  rationalistic  school 
Theological  ?ci-  ^crc  Grcisbach,  Koppe,  J.  G.  Rosenmliller,  Eich- 
ence  in  the  Lu-  hom,  Gablcr,  Bcrtholdt,  Ilenke,  Spittler,  Eberhard, 
and  A.  H.  Niemeyer.  Of  the  snpranaturalistic 
school,  abandoning  the  ancient  orthodoxy  in  various  degrees, 
but  still  maintaining  more  or  less  of  the  fundamentals  of  gen- 
eral Christianity,  are  Morus,  Doderlein,  Seiler,  Storr,  Knapp, 
Reinhard,  Lilienthal,  and  Koppen ;  and  in  church  history, 
Schriickh,  C.  W.  Y.  Walch,  Staudlin,  and  Planck.  The 
founder  of  the  distinctive  theology  of  the  nineteenth  century  was 


THEOLOGICAL    SCIENCE.  149 

Schleiermacher  (died  1834),  the  greatest  of  the  defenders  of 
the  union  between  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  of 
Germany.  Influencing  all  schools,  he  can  be  claimed  for  none. 
Xeandcr  may  be  classed  as  pietistic  supranaturalist,  De  Wette 
as  historico-critical  rationalist,  Hase  as  philosophico-sesthetic 
rationalist.  The  chief  defenders  of  the  vulgar  ration- 
alism are  Rohr,  Paulus,  Wegscheider,  Bretschneider,  and 
Amnion ;  of  historico-critical  rationalism^  Winer,  Fritzsche, 
Credner,  Schulz,  Von  Colin,  Rlickert,  Gesenius,  Tuch, 
Knobel,  Hupfeld,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Bertheau,  and  Len- 
gerke.  The  rational  supranaturalistie  school  is  represented  by 
Tzschirner,  Tittmann,  C.  F.  K.  Rosenmliller,  and  Baumgarten- 
Crusius  ;  supranatnralism.  proper^  or  suprarationalism,  by  E.  G. 
Bengel,  Flatt,  Heubner,  Augusti,  Hahn,  Bohmer ;  pietistic 
supi^anaturalism  by  Tholuck  (who  approached  more  closely  in 
the  coarse  of  his  studies  to  a  thoroughly  Lutheran  position), 
Hengstenberg,  Olshausen,  Stier,  Havernick,  Steiger,  and  Bun- 
sen  in  his  early  position,  though  in  his  latest  years  a  ration- 
alist. The  representatives  of  the  ''new  "  or  "  German"  theol- 
ogy, of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher,  of  Lutheran  origin,  are 
Liicke,  Kitzsch,  Julius  Miiller,  Ullmann,  T^vesten,  Dorner, 
Liebner,  and  Martensen ;  also  Rothe,  I.  T.  Beck,  Auberlen, 
Unibreit,  Bleek,  H.  A.  W.  Meyer,  Huther,  Wieseler,  and 
Tischendorf.  The  writers  of  the  nineteenth  century  whose 
names  we  have  given  are  or  were  within  the  "  Union,"  and 
defenders  of  it,  with  a  few  exceptions. 

The  representatives  of  the  Lutheran  theology^  for  the  most 
part,  in  its  strictest  sense,  are  Claus  Harms,  who  struck  the 
first  decisive  blow  at  rationalism  (1817),  Scheibel,  Sartorius, 
Rudelbach,  of  Denmark,  Guericke,  Ilarless,  Hofling,  Thoma- 
sius,  Philippi,  Harnack,  Dieckhof,  Lohe,  Vilmar,  Krabbe,Klie- 
tbth,  Delitzsch,  M.  Baumgarten,  Luthardt,  Dreschler,  Caspari, 
Oehlei,  Keil,  Zochler,  and  J.  11.  Kurtz.  Two  distinguished 
jurists,  K.  F.  Goschel  and  F.  J.  Stahl,  are  to  be  included 
among  the  defenders  of  the  Lutheran  confession. 

Among  the  names  which  once  took  undisputed  place  in 
this  part  of  the  roll  of  honor,  are  three  which  have  dropped 
from  it,  J.  C.  K.  v.  Hofmann,  Thiersch,  and  Kahnis  —  the  last 


150  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

by  his  assent  to  the  rationalistic  Criticism  of  the  Canon,  his 
rejection  of  the  Church  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  his  denial 
of  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  (suhordin- 
atism),  and  by  his  rejection  of  the  Lutheran  Exegesis  of  the 
Words  of  the  Institution  of  the  Supper,  while  he  yet  professes 
to  hold  fast  to  the  substance  of  the  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist. 

If  the  ISTineteenth  Century  has  not  been  an  era  of  the  most 
safe  and  solid  thinking,  it  has,  beyond  all  dispute,  been  the 
most  brilliant  era  in  the  history  of  theological  science ;  and 
alike  of  the  inventiveness  that  glittered,  and  of  the  sobriety 
that  restrained,  the  theological  impulse  which  the  world  owes 
to  the  Lutheran  Church,  has  been  the  spring. 

In  the  United  States  the  energies  of  the  best  men  in  the 
Church  have  been  directed  mainly  into  the  channels  of  prac- 
tical activity ;  yet  there  has  nevertheless  been  an  honorable 
exhibition  of  theological  ability  and  learning.  Among  the 
names  of  those  to  whom  we  owe  books,  either  as  writers, 
translators,  or  editors,  may  be  mentioned :  Anspach ;  Bach- 
man ;  S.  K  Brobst;  F.  AY.  Conrad;  Demme ;  G.Diehl;  L. 
Eichelberger ;  Endress  ;  Goering ;  Greenwald  ;  S.  W.  Harkey ; 
Hazelius ;  Helmuth  ;  the  Henkels,  Paul,  D.  M.,  Ambrose,  and 
Socrates  ;  J.  K.  Hoffman  ;  Hutter  ;  M.  Jacobs  ;  Henry  Jacobs  ; 
E.  W.  G.  Keyl ;  C.  Philip  Krauth ;  Krotel ;  Kunze ;  B.  Kurtz ; 
Lape ;  Lintner ;  the  Lochmans,  J.  G.  and  A.  H. :  Loy  ;  W. 
J.  Mann ;  P.  F.  Mayer ;  John  MeCron ;  Mealy  ;  F.  V.  Mels- 
heimer;  C.  B.  Miller;  J.  G.  Morris  ;  the  Muhlenbergs,  II.  M., 
H.  E.,  F.  A. ;  Xorelius;  Officer;  Oswald  ;  Passavant ;  Peixoto; 
Pohlman  ;  Preus  ;  Probst ;  Quitman  ;  Reynolds  ;  Salyards  ; 
the  Shaeffers,  F.  D,  D.  F.,  F.  C,  C.  F.,  C.  W. ;  H.  I.  Schmidt; 
J.  G.  Schmauck ;  the  Schmuckers,  J.  G.,  S.  S.,  B.  M. ;  Seiss ; 
Seylfarth  ;  Sheeleigh  ;  G.  Shober  ;  C.  A.  Smith  ;  J.  Few  Smith ; 
M.  L.  Steover;  F.  C.  Stohlman;  T.  Stork;  P.  A.  Strobel ; 
Stuckenberg  ;  Titus  ;  Van  Alstine  ;  Vogelbach  ;  Wackerha- 
gen;  C.  F.^W.  Walther;  AVeiser ;  D.  AVorley ;  F.  C.  AVyne- 
ken.  There  are  others  worthy  of  a  place  in  oar  list  of  authors, 
but  as  they  have  not  put  their  labors  into  the  permanent  shape 


EDUCATION  IN  THE    LUTHERAN   CHURCH.       151 

of    books,   it   docs   not   fall    within   our   i)lan    to   enumerate 
them.* 

The  imperfect  list  we  give  of  the  great  names  in  our  Church, 
especially  in  Germany,  may  serve  to  explain  the  strong  terms 
in  which  writers  of  other  churches  have  felt  themselves 
constrained  to  speak  of  Lutheran  theology :  "  The  Lutheran 
Church  has  a  great  pre-eminence  over  the  Reformed  in  regard 
to  its  internal  theological  development.  German  theological 
science  comes  forth  from  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  theology 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  supported  by  German  diligence,  thor- 
oughness, and  profundity,  stage  by  stage,  amid  manifold  strug- 
gles and  revolutions,  arose  to  an  amazing  elevation,  astounding 
and  incomprehensible  to  the  Swiss,  the  French,  and  the  Eng- 
lish." t  "  The  Lutheran  Church,"  says  Lange,  "  is  the  Church 
of  theologians.":]: 

At  once  as  a  cause  and  a  result  of  this  greatness  in  the 
highest  form  of  learning,  may  be  regarded  the  fact  that  the 
Lutheran  Church  is  an  Educating  Church  from  the  humblest 
sphere  of  the  children  of  the  poor  to  the  highest  range  of  the 
scholar's  erudition. 

The  early  efforts  of  Luther  in  behalf  of  education  were 
continued  by  his  successors  through  the  means  of  catechetical 
instruction,  congregational  and  public  schools,  and  universities. 
There  are  no  exclusively  Reformed  universities  in  Germany 
proper.  The  universities  which  the  Lutheran  Church  has  in 
part  or  in  whole  may  be  classified  as  follows  :  1,  those  in  which 
the  three  confessions  are  represented  —  Tlibingen,  Giessen, 
Breslau,  and  Bonn ;  2,  the  two  confessions,  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  —  Heidelberg,  Greifswalde,  Marburg,  Kbnigsberg, 
Halle,  Erlan2:en,  (the  professors  Lutheran  with  one 
exception,)  and  Berlin;  S,  exclusively  Lutheran —  the  Lutheran 
Leipsic,  Rostock,  (Wittenberg,  transferred  to  Halle 
in  1817,  now  a  seminary  for  candidates  for  the  ministry,)  Jena, 
Kiel,  and  Gottingen  ;  in  Denmark,  Copenhagen  ;  in  Norway, 
Christiania ;  in  Sweden,  Lund  and  Upsal ;  in  Russia,  Dorpat. 

*  Foi-  the  completest  list  of  "Publications  by  Lutherans  in  the  United  States," 
up  to  1861,  see  Evangelical  Review,  April,  1861,  542. 
t  Goebel,  263,  277.  t  Kurtz,  |  176,  6. 


152  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

In  the  United  States  she  has  fourteen  Theological  Seminaries, 
sixteen  Universities  and  Colleges,  nine  Female  Academies, 
sixteen  Academies,  and  various  societies  for  Education  and 
Publication.  The  Periodicals  devoted  to  her  interests  are, 
nine  English,  fifteen  German,  two  Xorvvegian,  two  Swedish. 

iN'or  has  the  Lutheran  Church  been  satisfied  with  meeting 
the  wants  of  her  own  children.  She  has  been,  and  is  a  Church 
of  Missions.  In  1559,  Gustavus  Yasa,  of  Sweden,  founded  a 
mission  among  the  Laplanders,  w4iich  was  continued  with 
renewed  earnestness  by  Gustavus  Adolphus,  Denmark  also 
aiding.  Thomas  von  AVesten  (died  1727)  Avas  the  apostle  of 
this  mission.  Hejling,  of  LUbeck,  without  any  aid,  labored 
as  a  missionary  in  Abyssinia,  (1635,)  and  others,  of  the  circle 
of  his  friends,  engaged  in  the  same  cause  in  various  parts  of 
the  East.  Frederick  IV.,  of  Denmark,  established  the  East 
India  mission  at  Tranquebar,  (1706,)  for  w^hich  Francke  fur- 
nished him  two  devoted  laborers,  Plutzschau  and 

Missions. 

Ziegenbalg,  the  latter  of  whom  translated  the  Aew 
Testament  into  Tamil,  (1715.)  The  labors  of  this  mission 
were  also  extended  to  the  English  possessions.  From  the 
orphan-house  at  Halle  went  forth  a  succession  of  missionaries, 
among  whom  Schwartz  (died  1798)  is  pre-eminent.  An  insti- 
tution for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  w^as  established  at  Halle, 
in  1728.  Egede  of  Xorway  (died  1758)  commenced  his  labors  in 
Greenland,  in  1721.  In  1736,  he  returned,  and  established  in 
Copenhagen  a  mission  seminary.  Though  the  larger  part  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  is  unfavorably  situated  for  Foreign  Missions, 
the  work  has  ever  been  dear  to  her — and  her  missions  have 
been,  and  are  now  among  the  most  successful  in  the  world. 

^lany  embarrassing  circumstances  prevented  the  Lutheran 
Church  from  developing  her  life  as  perfectly  in  her  church 
constitution  as  in  her  doctrines  and  worship.  The  idea 
of  the  universal  priesthood  of  all  believers  at  once  over- 
churchCon.ti-  thrcw  the  doctrine  of  a  distinction  of  essence 
iiuiun.  between    clergy    and   laity.     The  ministry   is    not 

an  order,  but  it  is  a  divinely  appointed  ofiice,  to  which  men 
must  be  rightly  called.  Xo  imparity  exists  by  divine  right ; 
an  hierarchical  organization  is  unchristian,  but   a   gradation 


DIVINE   WORSHIP.  153 

(bishops,  superintendents,  provosts)  may  be  observed,  as  a 
thing  of  human  right  only.  The  government  by  consistories 
has  been  very  general.  In  Denmark,  Evangelical  bishops 
took  the  place  of  the  Roman  Catholic  prelates  who  were 
deposed.  In  Sweden  the  bishops  embraced  the  Reformation, 
and  thus  secured  in  that  country  an  "apostolic  succession" 
in  the  high-church  sense;  though,  on  the  principles  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  alike  where  she  has  as  where  she  has  not 
such  a  succession,  it  is  not  regarded  as  essential  even  to  the 
order  of  the  Church.  The  ultimate  source  of  power  is  in  the 
congregations,  that  is,  in  the  pastor  and  other  officers  and  the 
people  of  the  single  communions.  The  right  to  choose  a  pas- 
tor belongs  to  the  people,  w^ho  may  exercise  it  by  direct  vot«, 
or  delegate  it  to  their  representatives. 

The  Lutheran  Church  regards  preaching  as  an  indispen- 
sable part  of  a  complete  divine  service.  All  worship  is  to 
be  in  the  vernacular ;  the  wants  of  the  heart  as  well  as  of,  the 
reason  are  to  be  met.  Whatever  of  the  past  is  spiritual,  beau- 
tiful, and  appropriate,  is  to  be  retained.  The  church  year, 
with  its  great  festivals,  is  kept.  With  various  national  diver- 
sities there  is  a  substantial  agreement  in  the  liturgical  services 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  throughout  almost  all  the  world. 
The  hymns  are  sung  by  all  the  people  with  the  Divine  wor- 
organ  accompaniment.  The  clergymen  in  their  ^'"*'" 
official  functions  wear  a  distinctive  dress,  usually  a  black  robe, 
with  the  bands,  though  the  surplice  has  also  been  largely 
retained.  In  Denmark  and  Sweden,  the  chasuble  is  also 
worn  in  the  altar  service ;  and  in  Sweden,  the  mitre  and 
bishop's  crosier  are  retained.  A  preparatory  service  pre- 
cedes communion.  The  doctrine  and  practice  of  auricular 
confession  were  rejected  at  the  beginning.  The  "  private 
confession,"  which  was  established  in  some  parts  of  the 
Church,  involves  no  enumeration  or  confession  of  particular 
sins  whatever,  unless  the  communicant  desires  to  speak  of 
them ;  and  the  ''  private  absolution "  is  simply  the  annun- 
ciation of  the  gospel  promise  with  the  gospel  conditions  to 
the  individual  penitent,  a  promise  which  in  its  own  nature 
is  collative,  that  is,  actually  confers  remission,  when  it  is  re- 


154  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

ceived  in  faith.  The  "  Exorcism  "  in  the  shape  in  which  it 
existed  in  some  of  the  Lutheran  Churches,  involved  little 
more  than  "  the  Renunciation,"  and  can  be  defended  on 
some  of  the  same  grounds.  Simply  as  a  rite  long  estab- 
lished, and  which  might  be  tolerated  if  regarded  as  no 
more  than  a  symbolical  representation  of  the  doctrine  that 
our  nature  is  under  the  dominion  of  sin,  it  was  practised  in 
parts  of  the  Church,  but  has  fallen  everywhere  into  oblivion. 
Persons  are  received  to  the  communion  of  the  Church  by 
confirmation  performed  by  the  pastor,  after  thorough  instruc- 
tion in  the  Catechism.  But  especially  in  sacred  song  has 
the  Lutheran  Church  a  grand  distinctive  element  of  her 
worship.  "The  Lutheran  Church,"  says  Dr.  Schaff,  "draws 
the  fine  arts  into  the  service  of  religion,  and  has  produced 
a  body  of  hymns  and  chorals,  which,  in  richness,  power, 
and  unction,  surpasses  the  hymnology  of  all  other  churches 
in  the  world."  "In  divine  worship,"  says  Goebel,  "we  reach 
a  point  in  which  the  Lutheran  Church  has  one  of  its  most 
glorious  features  of  pre-eminence.  The  hymns  of  the  Church 
are  the  people's  confession,  and  have  wrought  more  than  the 
preaching.  In  the  Lutheran  Church  alone,  German  hymn- 
ology attained  a  bloom  truly  amazing.  The  words  of  holy 
song  were  heard  everywhere,  and  sometimes,  as  with  a  single 
stroke,  won  whole  cities  for  the  Gospel." 

What  has  been  the  practical  working  of  the  Lutheran  sys- 
tem in  the  life  of  the  Church  ?     This  question  is  an  extensive 
one,  and  we  ofter  but  a  fact  or  two  bearing  on  the  answer  to 
it.     In  the  Lutheran  system  the  word  of  God  works  from 
within  to  the  outward.     The  Romanic  nations  are 

Practical  work-  .  ^ . 

ing  of  Lutheran-  characteHstically  less  contemplative  and  more  radi- 
ismintueiife.  ^^^  ^^^^  inclined  to  extremes  than  the  Germanic, 
and  the  Swiss  Reformation  had  a  large  mingling  of  political 
elements.  The  Lutheran  type  of  Reformation  and  of  religion 
is  consequently  milder  and  less  demonstrative,  less  obtrusive 
and  more  averse  to  display,  than  the  Zwinglian  and  Calvin- 
istic;  but  the  piety  it  matures  is  unequalled  in  firmness, 
calmness,  earnestness,  joyousness,  and  freedom.  The  character 
of  Luther  himself,  is  largely  mirrored  in  the  Church  which 


WORKING    OF  LUTHERANISM  IN  TUE  LIFE.       155 

cherishes  his  memory  as  one  of  her  most  precious  possessions. 
The  Lutheran  Church  is  very  rich  in  devotional  works  for  the 
people.  It  is  more  in  affinity  with  high  sesthetic  culture  than 
other  Protestant  Churches.  It  is  less  open  than  others  to 
excessive  tendencies  to  voluntary  (especially  to  secret)  associa- 
tion not  under  the  control  of  the  Church.  It  may  be  claimed 
for  it  that  it  is  the  most  healthfully  cautious  of  Churches,  and, 
therefore,  most  sure  to  make  the  most  permanent,  if  not  the 
most  rapid  progress.  Goebel,  a  Reformed  writer,  says :  ''  That 
charming,  frank  good-humor,  and  that  beneficence  which  rise 
from  the  very  depth  of  the  soul,  and  which  so  advantageously 
distinguish  the  German  nation  from  others,  are  wanting  among 
the  Reformed  —  even  among  the  Germans  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  The  piety  of  the  Lutherans  is  deep,  fervent,  heart- 
felt." And  a  far  greater  theological  scholar,  (Dr.  Schati',)  also 
of  another  communion,  has  said :  "  The  Lutheran  piety  has 
also  its  peculiar  charm  —  the  charm  of  Mary,  who  sat  at  Jesus' 
feet  and  heard  his  word.  ...  It  excels  in  honesty,  kindness, 
affection,  cheerfulness,  and  that  gemiithlichkeit  for  which 
other  nations  have  not  even  a  name.  The  Lutheran  Church 
meditated  over  the  deepest  mysteries  of  divine  grace,  and 
brought  to  light  many  treasures  of  knowledge  from  the  mines 
of  revelation.  She  can  point  to  an  unbroken  succession  of 
learned  divines  who  devoted  their  whole  lives  to  the  investi- 
gation of  saving  truth.  She  numbers  her  mystics  who  bathed 
in  the  ocean  of  infinite  love.  She  has  sung  the  most  fervent 
hymns  to  the  Saviour,  and  holds  sweet,  child-like  intercourse 
with  the  Heavenly  Father." 

A  fair  construction  of  the  whole  history  of  the  past  will 
inspire  faith  in  the  character  of  the  people  whom  God  has 
given  to  our  Church  to  be  gathered  under  her  banners  and  to 
fight  her  battles.  ^N'ot  all  the  havoc  which  state-meddling, 
war,  and  infidelity  have  made  with  the  true  German  character 
in  Europe  can  efface  the  evidence  of  the  past  and  the  present, 
that  of  all  nations  the  German  is  the  most  simply  and  pro- 
foundly religious,  that  the  Germans  are  what  Dr.  Arnold  calls 
them :  "  the  regenerating  race  —  the  most  moral  race  of  men," 


156  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  a  large  part  of  this  glorj  is  due  to  that  Church  which  so 
faithfully  exhibits  and  nurtures  the  genuine  Germanic  life. 

And  not  unworthy  of  a  place  with  this  noble  element  is  the 
other  great  family  of  Lutheran  nations,  which  next  to  the  Ger- 
mans, are  adding  to  the  greatest  treasure  of  this  New  World, 
thousands  of  Christian  men.  The  name  of  Scandinavians  recalls 
great  Lutheran  nationalities  which  have  deserved  well  of  the 
The  scandiua-  woHd.  With  it  is  couuectcd  the  name  of  Gustavua 
Tian  Luthenins,  Vasa,  King  of  Swcdcu,  who  pleaded  for  the  Re- 
formation wdth  tears,  who  laid  down  his  sceptre 
and  refused  to  take  it  again  until  the  love  of  his  people  for 
him  made  them  w^illing  to  receive  the  Reformation,  and  who 
founded,  among  the  poor  Laplanders,  one  of  the  first  Protest- 
ant Missions.  It  recalls  the  name  of  the  martyr-hero,  Gus- 
tavus  Adolphus,  whose  name  should  be  dearer  to  Protestants, 
and  most  of  all  to  Lutherans,  who  justly  claim  to  be  the  most 
Protestant  of  Protestants,  dearer  than  the  name  of  Washing- 
ton to  Americans,  for  a  part  of  the  price  he  paid  for  the  rescue 
of  the  religious  liberty  of  Europe  was  his  own  blood.  But  for 
him,  our  Protestantism  might  have  been  borne  down,  and  swept 
away  from  the  world  in  a  torrent  of  blood  and  fire.  He,  too, 
was  zealous  in  the  cause  of  missions.  It  was  a  Scandinavian 
king,  Frederick  lY.  of  Denmark,  who  established  at  Tranque- 
bar,  the  East  India  Mission,  which  was  blest  with  the  labors 
of  Ziegenbalg,  and  of  the  greatest  of  missionaries  of  all  time, 
Christian  Frederic  Schwartz.  It  was  a  Scandinavian  Lutheran 
preacher,  Hans  Egede,  of  Xorway,  who,  amid  toil,  peril,  and 
suti:ering,  planted  a  pure  Christianity  among  the  Greenlanders. 
*•'•  In  the  eighteenth  century,"  says  Wiggers,  "  Denmark  shone 
in  the  eyes  of  Evangelical  Europe  as  a  fireside  and  home  of 
missions."  "In  Sweden,"  says  the  same  distinguished  writer, 
"the  Lutheran  Church  won  a  noble  and  pure  people,  full  of  a 
vigorous  and  steadfast  faith,  a  people  marked  by  clearness  and 
brightness  of  intellect,  by  pure  and  simple  morals,  and  the  soul 
of  chivalry  ;  a  people  always  ready  fearlessly  to  wage  warfare 
for  the  Gospel  with  the  sword  of  the  spirit,  and  if  necessity 
urged,  with  the  temporal  sword.     United  with  the  state  by 


THE  SCANDINAVIAN  LUTHERANS.  157 

the  most  intimate  ties,  not  of  bondage,  but  of  mutual  love, 
entering  thoroughly  into  every  part  of  the  national  life,  exer- 
cising through  its  control  of  the  schools  the  mightiest  and 
holiest  influence  in  the  training  of  the  young,  with  a  ministry 
whose  tidelity  and  wisdom  accomplish  the  more,  because  they 
are  sustained  by  high  temporal  position  and  adequate  support, 
with  a  people  who  exhibit  a  calm  and  pious  humility,  and  an 
unlimited  confidence  in  their  pastors,  the  Church  of  Sweden 
shines,  like  a  star  with  its  pure  mild  light,  in  the  northern  sky." 
For  the  Anglicized  and  English  portion  of  our  Church, 
which  best  represents  it,  Ave  claim  a  character  in  consonance 
with  its  great  antecedents  —  a  character  of  simplicity,  earnest- 
ness, devoutness.  In  the  departments  of  business,  the  calm  of 
home,  the  sacred  duties  of  the  Church,  the  sphere  of  citizens, 
they  show  a  solid  w^orth,  which  testifies  to  the  thoroughness 
of  the  Christian  nurture  of  the  communion  they  love. 

Of  what  our  Church  is,  and  of  what  she  brings  to  this,  her 
new  home,  witness  has  been  borne  by  more  than  one  thought- 
ful man  of  other  communions.     But  among  them  all,  there  is 
none  of  more  value  than  that  given  by  Dr.  John  W.  Kevin,  of 
the  Reformed  Church.     Ko  amount  of  divergence  from  Dr. 
Kevin's  views,  could  prevent  a  man  of  candor  from  acknowl- 
edging in    him  the  presence  of  a  great  intellect,  of  the  most 
unpretending    simplicity    and    modesty,    and    of    the    most 
uncompromising  love  of   truth.     Our  country  has  few  men 
who  can  be  classified  with  him.     In  originality  and  general 
vigor  of  conception  and  of  style,  Bushnell  and  Parks  would 
be  thought  of  as  most  like  him  ;  but  we  do  not  think  that  on 
any  just  estimate  of  the  men,  they  could  be  claimed  as  his 
superiors.     Dr.  Kevin's  range  of  thought  is  at  once  broader 
and  deeper  than  that  of  most  of  our  theological  thinkers.     It 
is  comprehensive  without  becoming  shallow.    For  the  Lutheran 
Church  in   its  genuine  life  he  expresses  great  afiection  and 
reverence,  and  his  witness  is  of  peculiar  value,  for  no  man  out 
of  our  Church  knows  more  fully  than  he  what  is  in  it.     He 
says,  in  speaking  of  the  cultivation  of  an  historical  spirit  in 
his  own  Church:  "But  this  cannot  fail  to  bring  with  it,  at 
the  same  time,  the  power  of  understanding  and  appreciating 


168  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

also  the  vast  historical  significance  which  belongs  to  the  other 
o-reat  Protestant  Confession,  the  Lutheran  Church.  In  recog- 
nizing our  identity  with  the  Reformed  Confession  in  general, 
while  w^e  yet  discard  the  peculiarity  of  our  position  in  it  as  a 
German  Kefornied  Church,  we  come  necessarily  into  the  feel- 
ing of  what  Lutheranism  is  for  the  church  at  large,  in  a  way 
that  is  not  by  any  means  so  easy  for  the  thinking  of  other 
branches  of  the  lieformed  Communion  in  this  country.  In 
understanding  ourselves  and  in  learning  to  do  justice  to  our 
own  historical  character,  w^e  are  made  conscious  not  simply  of 
our  difference  from  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  also  of  our  old 
nearness  to  it,  and  of  what  we  owe  to  it  for  our  universal  church 
life.  The  power  of  estimating  intelligently  the  merits  of  the 
.. ,     ,  ,  ,     Heidelberg  Catechism,  must  prove  for  us  the  power 

Valueof  theliU-  o  i  /->.        p        •  -x 

theran  ciiurch  to  Qf  bouorlug  also  the  Augsburg  Coniession,  as  it 
?aVjr"i)7j.  w.  was  honored  in  the  beginning  by  the  framers  of 
^"'^'"-  the  Catechism.     We  can  have  no  sympathy  with 

that  type  of  Reformed  thought,  whether  in  Xew  England  or 
elsewhere,  which  has  fallen  away  entirely  from  the  original 
Spannung  of  the  two  great  Protestant  Confessions  ;  which  has 
lost  all  sense  for  the  old  theological  issues,  that  threw  them 
asunder  in  the  sixteenth  century  ;  and  for  which  Lutheranism, 
in  the  profound  distinction  w^hich  then  belonged  to  it,  has 
become  an  unmeaning  memory  of  the  dead  past.  We  are  in 
the  w^ay  more  and  more,  it  may  be  hoped,  of  knowing  better 
than  this.  We  can  have  no  wish  to  have  the  Lutheran  Church 
overwhelmed  in  this  country  by  the  reigning  unhistorical  spirit 
of  our  American  Christianity  —  no  wish  to  see  it  Americanized, 
in  the  sense  of  anything  like  a  general  rupture  with  its  original 
theological  life.  The  whole  Reformed  Church  here,  whether 
it  be  perceived  or  not,  has  a  vast  interest  at  stake  on  the  power 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  remain  true  and  faithful  to  her  con- 
fessional mission.  For  all  who  are  capable  of  appreciating  at 
all  the  central  and  vital  character  of  the  questions  that  shook 
the  Protestant  world  in  the  age  of  the  Reformation,  and  who 
are  able  to  make  proper  account  of  the  unsacramental  tenden- 
cies of  the  present  time,  it  must  be  a  matter  for  congratulation 
that  German  Lutheranism  has  grown  to  be  so  numerically 


THE  LUTHERAN   CHURCH  IN  AMERICA.         159 

powerful  witliin  our  borders,  and  that  it  is  coming  to  be  in 
every  way  so  vast  an  ecclesiastical  power  in  the  land  ;  while  it 
ought  to  be  the  prayer  of  all,  that  this  power  may  be  so  exer- 
cised more  and  more  as  to  be  a  principle  of  wholesome  redemp- 
tion and  preservation  for  the  universal  Protestantism  of  the 
nation." 

That  such  a  Church  has  a  mission  of  extraordinary  import- 
ance in  this  land  in  which  exist  such  dangerous  tendencies  to 
sectarianism  and  radicalism,  and  whose  greatest  j^^.^^.^^  ^^  ^^^ 
need  is  the  cultivation  of  historical  feeling,  under  Lutheran  church 

„  ,      T  .  .  'in  America. 

the  restraint  of  a  wholesome  conservatism,  requires 
no  argument.  The  Lutheran  Church  daily  becomes  better 
known  through  the  translations  of  her  literature,  though 
most  of  them  are  very  bad  ones ;  but  her  work  of  good  cannot 
be  consummated  till  she  renders  her  genius  and  life  themselves 
into  the  idiom  of  the  new  nationality  into  which  she  is  here 
passing.  Protestant  to  the  very  heart,  yet  thoroughly  histori- 
cal, happy  in  her  liberty  of  adaptation  in  things  indifferent, 
while  she  is  fast  anchored  in  the  great  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  and  the  doctrines  which  cluster  around  it,  popular  in 
her  principles  of  church  government,  which,  without  running 
into  Independency,  accord  such  large  powers  to  the  congrega- 
tion, principles  free  from  the  harshness  of  some  systems,  the 
hierarchical,  aristocratic,  autocratic  tendencies  of  others,  the 
fanaticism  and  looseness  of  others,  possessing  liturgical  life 
without  liturgical  bondage,  great  in  a  history  in  which  all 
mankind  are  interested,  her  children  believe  that  she  bears 
special  treasures  of  good  to  bless  the  land  of  her  adoption. 

Immovable  in  her  faith  and  the  life  it  generates,  our  Church, 
the  more  heartily  and  intelligently,  on  this  very  account,  ac- 
cepts the  great  fact  that  God  has  established  her  in  this  west- 
ern world  under  circumstances  greatly  different  from  those  in 
which  her  past  life  has  been  nurtured.  1^q\y  forms  of  duty, 
new  types  of  thought,  new  necessities  of  adaptation,  are  here 
to  tax  all  her  strength,  and  to  test  how  far  she  is  able  to  main- 
tain her  vital  power  under  necessary  changes  of  form.  The 
Lutheranism  of  this  country  cannot  be  a  mere  feeble  echo  of 
any  nationalized  species  of  Lutheranism.     It  cannot,  in  the 


160  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

national  sense,  be  permanently  German  or  Scandinavian,  out 
of  Germany  and  Scandinavia,  but  in  America  must  be  Ameri- 
can. It  must  be  conformed  in  accordance  with  its  own  princi- 
ples to  its  new  home,  bringing  hither  its  priceless  experiences 
in  the  old  world,  to  apply  them  to  the  living  present  in  the 
new.  Our  Church  must  be  pervaded  by  sympathy  for  this 
land ;  she  must  learn  in  order  that  she  may  teach.  She  must 
not  be  afraid  to  trust  herself  on  this  wdld  current  of  the  quick 
life  of  America.  She  must  not  cloister  herself,  but  show  in 
her  freedom,  and  in  her  wise  use  of  the  opportunity  of  the 
present,  that  she  knows  how  robust  is  her  spiritual  life,  and 
how  secure  are  her  principles  however  novel  or  trying  the  tests 
to  which  they  are  subjected. 

The  catholicity  of  the  range  of  our  Church  among  nations, 
in  which  she  is  entirely  without  parallel  among  Protestant 
Churches,  does,  indeed,  make  the  problem  of  the  fusion  of  her 
elements  very  difficult ;  but  it  is  the  very  same  problem  which 
our  nation  has  had  to  solve.  In  spite  of  all  the  difficulties  of 
inflowing  nationalities,  we  consider  their  presence  in  our  coun- 
try as  politically  a  source  of  strength,  even  though  a  collision 
of  them  has  sometimes  brought  about  riot  and  murder.  The 
Lutheran  Church,  if  she  can  solve  her  problem,  will  be  repaid 
by  a  result  richly  worth  all  her  toil  and  endurance. 

Though  the  descendants  of  Lutherans  have  often  been  lost 
to  the  Lutheran  Church,  she,  on  the  other  hand,  embraces 
in  her  membership  thousands  not  of  Lutheran  origin  ;  and 
though  in  the  nature  of  the  case  these  gains  are  far  from 
counterbalancing  her  losses,  they  show  that  the  losses  have 
not  resulted  from  want  of  adaptation  to  the  genius  of  our 
time  and  of  our  land.  The  Lutheran  Church,  where  she  is 
understood,  has  proved  herself  a  popular  Church,  a  true  church 
of  the  people. 

She  has  a  wonderful  power  of  adaptation,  and  of  persist- 
ence, and  of  recuperation.  Her  tendency  to  unite  is  so  great, 
that  although  there  have  been  difficulties  which,  in  churches 
of  a  separatistic  character,  would  have  originated  a  dozen  of 
sects,  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country  still  retains  her 
denominational  unity.     Many  of  the  difficulties  of  our  Church 


FUTURE   OF    THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH.  161 

were,  in  their  own  nature,  inevitable.  So  extraordinary  Lave 
the}^  been,  that  nothing  but  a  vitality  of  the  most  positive 
kind  could  have  saved  her.  A  calm  review  of  her  history  in 
this  country  up  to  this  hour,  impresses  us  with  a  deeper 
conviction  that  she  is  a  daughter  of  God,  and  destined  to  do 
much  for  his  glory  in  this  western  Avorld.  Let  her  be  faith- 
ful to  her  faith,  in  the  confession  of  the  lip,  the  love  of  the 
heart,  the  devotion  of  the  life ;  let  her  soul  invest  itself  with 
the  body  of  a  sound  government ;  let  her  ministers  and  people 
be  knit  to  her,  and  to  one  another,  with  the  love  which  such  a 
church  should  command  from  her  children,  and  should  infuse 
into  them,  one  to  another,  and  God  helping  her,  the  glory  of 
her  second  temple  shall  not  be  unworthy  of  the  great  memories 
of  the  first. 

The  signs  of  the  times  must  be  lost  on  our  people  if  they 
are  not  waked  up  to  a  more  just  appreciation  of  their  Church, 
And  though  not  known  by  others  as  she  should  be,  she  is 
better  known  and  wins  increasing  respect.  The  ^^^^^^  ^^ 
importance  of  the  aid  she  brings  in  evangelizing  the  Lutheran 
this  western  world  is  more  deeply  felt,  and  before 
the  eyes  of  those  even  who  would  not  see  her  when  she  sat 
mourning  in  the  dust,  she  rises  more  brightly  and  beautifully, 
an  acknowledged  power  in  the  land.  Our  parent  tree  may 
shed  its  foliage,  to  renew  it,  or  its  blossoms  may  fall  off  to 
give  way  to  fruit,  parasitic  creepers  may  be  torn  from  it, 
storms  may  carry  away  a  dead  branch  here  and  there  —  but 
there  is  not  streno-th  enouo-li  in  hell  and  earth  combined  to 
break  its  massive  trunk.  Till  the  new  earth  comes,  that 
grand  old  tree,  undecaying,  will  strike  its  roots  deeper  in  the 
earth  that  now  is  :  till  the  new  heavens  arch  themselves,  it 
will  lift  itself  under  these  skies,  and  wave,  in  tempest   and 

sunshine  its  glorious  boughs. 
11 


V, 


THE    CONFESSIONAL    PRINCIPLE    OF    THE    CONSERV- 
ATIVE REFORMATION  * 


IN  the  statement  of  fundamental  and  unchangeable  prmeiples 
of  Faith,  which  the  General  Council  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  in  America  lays  as  the  basis  of  its  Consti- 
tution, it  is  declared : 

I.  There  must  be  and  abide  through  all  time,  one  holy  Chris- 
tian Church,  which  is  the  assembly  of  all  believers,  among 
whom  the  Gospel  is  purely  preached,  and  the  Holy  Sacraments 
are  administered,  as  the  Gospel  demands. 

To  the  true  unity  of  the  Church,  it  is  sufficient  that  there 
be  agreement  touching  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  that  it  be 
preached  in  one  accord,  in  its  pure  sense,  and  that  the  Sacra- 
ments be  administered  conformably  to  God's  word. 

*  Blacktjurne  :  The  Confessional:  Inquiry  into  the  right,  etc.,  of  Confessions 
of  Faith,  etc.     Lond.   1770. 

BiJscHiNG:   Ub.  d.  Symbol.  Schriften  d.  Evang.  Luther.  Kirche.     Hamb.   1771. 
"  Wenn  und  durch  wen  die  Symbol.  Schr.  ausgel.  werd.     Berl.  1789. 

Eberhard  :  1st  die  Augsb.  Confess.  eineGlaubensvorschr.,  etc.      1795-97. 

Heusinqer:  WUrdigung  der  S.  B.  n.  d.  jetz.  Zcitbediirf.     Leipz,  1799. 

Fritzsche  :  tJber.  d.  nnverand.  Gelt,  der  Aug.  Confess.     Leipz.  1830. 

Martens  :  Die  Symb.  Buch.  der  Ev.  Luth.  Kirche.     Halberst.  1830. 

Johannsen:   Untersuch.derllechtmassigk.  d.Verpfl.  a.  S.  B.     Altona.   1833. 

Hoflinq:   De  Symbolor.  natur.  necessit.  auctor.  atque  usu.     Erl.   1835. 

Bretschneider:   Die  Unzulassigk.  d.  Symbolzwangcs.     Leipz.  1841. 

Sartorius:  Nothwendigk.  u.  Verbindlichk.  d.  Kirch.  Glaubensbekenntn. 
Stuttgart.   1845.     (See  Review  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Seiss  :   Evang.  Rev.  July,  1852.) 

Kollner:  Die  gate  Sache  d.  Luth.  Symbole.     Gottingen.   1847. 

162 


FUNDAMENTAL   PRINCIPLES    OF  FAITH.       163 

II.  The  true  unity  of  a  particular  Church,  in  virtue  of 
which  men  are  truly  members  of  one  and  the  same  Church, 
and  by  which  any  Church  abides  in  real  identity,  Fundamei.ti.i 
and  is  entitled  to  a  continuation  of  her  name,  i"i'<ipi'-«"i faith. 
is  unity  in  doctrine  and  ftiith  in  the  Sacraments,  to  wit : 
That  she  continues  to  teach  and  to  set  forth,  and  that  her  true 
members  embrace  from  the  heart,  and  use,  the  articles  of  faith 
and  the  Sacraments  as  they  w^ere  held  and  administered  when 
the  Church  came  into  distinctive  being  and  received  a  distinc- 
tive name. 

III.  The  Unity  of  the  Church  is  witnessed  to,  and  made 
manifest  in,  the  solemn,  public,  and  official  Confessions  which 
are  set  forth,  to  wit:  The  generic  Unity  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  the  general  Creeds,  and  the  specific  Unity  of  pure 
parts  of  the  Christian  Church  in  their  specific  Creeds  ;  one 
chief  object  of  both  classes  of  which  Creeds  is,  that  Christians 
who  are  in  the  Unity  of  faith,  may  know  each  other  as  such, 
and  may  have  a  visible  bond  of  fellowship. 

lY.  That  Confessions  may  be  such  a  testimony  of  Unity 
and  bond  of  Union,  they  must  be  accepted  in  every  statement 
of  doctrine,  in  their  own  true,  native,  original  and  only  sense. 
Those  who  set  them  forth  and  subscribe  them,  must  not  only 
agree  to  use  the  same  words,  but  must  use  and  understand 
those  words  in  one  and  the  same  sense. 

Y.  The  Unity  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  as  a 
portion  of  the  holy  Christian  Church,  depends  upon  her  abiding 
in  one  and  the  same  faith,  in  confessing  which  she  obtained 
her  distinctive  being  and  name,  her  political  recognition,  and 
her  history. 

YI.  The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is  by  pre-eminence 
the  Confession  of  that  faith.  The  acceptance  of  its  doctrines 
and  the  avowal  of  them  without  equivocation  or  mental  reser- 
vation, make,  mark,  and  identify  that  Church,  which  alone  in 
the  true,  original,  historical,  and  honest  sense  of  the  term  is 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 

YII.  The  only  Churches,  therefore,  of  any  land,  which  are 
properly  in  the  Unity  of  that  Communion,  and  by  consequence 
entitled  to  its  name.  Evangelical  Lutheran,  are  those  wdiich 


164  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

sincerely  hold  and  truthfully  confess  the  doctrines  of  the  LTn- 
altered  Augshurg  Confession. 

VIII.  AVe  accept  and  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of  the  Un- 
altered Auocsburo:  Confession  in  its  oris-inal  sense  as  through- 
out  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  which  God's  Word 
is  the  only  rule.  We  accept  its  statements  of  truth  as* in  per- 
fect accordance  with  the  Canonical  Scriptures :  We  reject  the 
errors  it  condemns,  and  we  believe  that  all  which  it  commits 
to  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  of  right  belongs  to  that  liberty. 

IX.  In  thus  formally  accepting  and  acknowledging  the  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession,  we  declare  our  conviction,  that 
the  other  Confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church, 
inasmuch  as  they  set  forth  none  other  than  its  system  of  doc- 
trine, and  articles  of  faith,  are  of  necessity  pure  and  scriptural. 
Pre-eminent  among  such  accordant,  pure,  and  scriptural  state- 
ments of  doctrine,  by  their  intrinsic  excellence,  by  the  great 
and  necessary  ends  for  which  they  were  prepared,  by  their  his- 
torical position,  and  by  the  general  judgment  of  the  Church, 
are  these :  The  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the 
Smalcald  Articles,  the  Catechisms  of  Luther,  and  the  Fornmla 
of  Concord,  all  of  which  are,  with  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession,  in  the  perfect  harmony  of  one  and  the  same  scrip- 
tural faith. 

In  accordance  with  these  principles  every  Professor  elect  of 
the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 
at  Philadelphia,  in  the  act  of  investiture  and  before  entering  on 
the  performance  of  the  duties  of  his  office,  makes  the  following 
affirmation : 

'  I  believe  that  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  and  ]^ew 
Testaments  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  are  the  per- 
fect and  only  Rule  of  Faith  ;  and  I  believe  that  the  three  Gen- 
eral Creeds,  the  Apostles',  the  ISTicene,  and  the  Athanasian, 
exhibit  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  in  accordance  with 
this  Rule. 

'  I  believe  that  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is,  in  all 
its  parts,  in  harmony  with  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  is  a  correct 
exhibition  of  doctrine;  and  I  l)elieve  that  the  Apology,  the 
two    Catechisms  of   Luther,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  and    the 


THE   RULE    OF   FAITH.  165 

Formula  of  Concord,  are  a  faitliful  development  and  defence 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. 

'I  solemnly  promise  before  Almighty  God  that  all  my  teach- 
ings shall  be  in  conformity  with  Ilis  Word,  and  with,  the  afore- 
mentioned Confessions.' 

The  thetical  statements  of  the  Council  and  the  declaration 
which  follows,  exhibit,  as  we  believe,  the  relation  of  the  Rule 
of  Faith  and  the  Confessions,  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
of  the  Conservative  Reformation.  Accepting  those  principles, 
we  stand  upon  the  everlasting  foundation  —  the  Word  of  God : 
believing  that  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  and  Kew  Tes- 
tament are  in  their  original  tongues,  and  in  a  pure  text,  the 
perfect  and  only  rule  of  faith.  All  these  books  are  in  harmony, 
each  with  itself,  and  all  with  each  other,  and  yield  to  the 
honest  searcher,  under  the  ordinary  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  a  clear  statement  of  doctrine,  and  produce  a  firm  assur- 
ance of  faith.  ISTot  any  word  of  man,  no  creed,  commentary, 
theological  system,  nor  decision  of  Fathers  or  of  councils,  no 
doctrine  of  Churches,  or  of  the  whole  Church,  no  results  or 
judgments  of  reason,  however  strong,  matured,  and  well 
informed,  no  one  of  these,  and  not  all  of  these  The  Rule  of 
together,  but  God's  word  alone  is  the  rule  of  faith,  ^"^''ti'- 
^o  apocryphal  books,  but  the  canonical  books  alone,  are  the 
rule  of  faith,  ^o  translations,  as  such,  but  the  original 
Hebrew  and  Chaldee  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Greek  of 
the  ISTew,  are  the  letter  of  the  rule  of  faith,  ^o  vitiation  of 
the  designing,  nor  error  of  the  careless,  but  the  incorrupt  text 
as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  men  of  God,  who  wrote 
under  the  motions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  rule  of  faith.  To 
this  rule  of  faith  we  are  to  bring  our  minds ;  by  this  rule  we 
are  humbly  to  try  to  form  our  faith,  and  in  accordance  with 
it,  God  helping  us,  to  teach  others  —  teaching  them  the  evi- 
dences of  its  inspiration,  the  true  mode  of  its  interpretation, 
the  ground  of  its  authority,  and  the  mode  of  settling  its  text. 
The  student  of  theology  is  to  be  taught  the  Biblical  languages, 
to  make  him  an  independent  investigator  of  the  word  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  the  organ  through  which  that  Spirit  reveals 


166  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

His  mind.  First  of  all,  as  the  greatest  of  all,  as  the  ground- 
work of  all,  as  the  end  of  all  else,  we  are  to  teach  God's  pure 
word,  its  faith  for  faith,  its  life  for  life ;  in  its  integrity,  in  its 
marvellous  adaptation,  in  its  divine,  its  justifying,  its  sancti- 
fying, and  glorifying  power.  We  are  to  lay,  as  that  without 
which  all  else  would  he  laid  in  vain,  the  foundation  of  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets  —  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone. 

Standing  really  upon  the  everlasting  foundation  of  this  Rule 
of  Faith,  we  stand  of  necessity  on  the  faith,  of  which  it  is  the 
rule.  It  is  not  the  truth  as  it  lies,  silent  and  unread,  in  the 
Word,  hut  the  truth  as  it  enters  from  that  Word  into  the 
human  heart,  with  the  applying  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  makes  men  believers.  Faith  makes  men  Christians ; 
Confession  of  ^^^  Coufessiou  aloue  marks  them  as  Christians. 
Faith.  The  Rule  of  Faith  is  God's  voice  to  uS ;  faith  is 

the  hearing  of  that  voice,  and  the  Confession,  our  reply  of 
assent  to  it.  By  our  faith,  we  are  known  to  the  Lord  as  his  ; 
by  our  Confession,  we  are  known  to  each  other  as  His  chil- 
dren. Confession  of  faith,  in  some  form,  is  imperative.  To 
confess  Christ,  is  to  confess  what  is  our  faith  in  him.  As  the 
Creed  is  not,  and  cannot  be  the  Rule  of  Faith,  but  is  its  Con- 
fession merely,  so  the  Bible,  because  it  is  the  Rule  of  Faith,  is 
of  necessity  not  its  Confession.  The  Bible  can  no  more  be  any 
man's  Creed,  than  the  stars  can  be  any  man's  astronomy.  The 
stars  furnish  the  rule  of  the  astronomer's  faith :  the  Principia 
of  Xewton  may  be  the  Confession  of  his  faith.  If  a  man 
were  examined  as  a  candidate  for  the  chair  of  astronomy  in  a 
university,  and  were  asked,  "  What  is  your  astronomical  sys- 
tem ? "  and  were  to  answer,  "  I  accept  the  teaching  of  the 
stars,"  the  reply  would  be,  "You  may  think  you  do  —  so  does 
the  man  who  is  sure  that  the  stars  move  round  the  world,  and 
that  they  are  not  orbs,  but  '  gimlet-holes  to  let  the  glory 
through.'  We  wish  to  know  what  you  hold  the  teachings  of 
the  stars  to  be?  Do  you  receive,  as  in  harmony  with  them, 
the  results  reached  by  Copernicus,  by  Galileo,  by  Kepler,  by 
IN^ewton,  La  Place,  and  Herschel,  or  do  you  think  the  world 
one  great  flat,  and  the  sun  and  moon  mere  pendants  to  it  ?  " 


WHAT  SHALL   BE    OUR    CONFESSION?  167 

"  Gentlemen,"  replies  the  independent  investigator,  "  the 
theories  of  those  astronomers  are  human  systems  —  man-made 
theories.  I  go  out  every  night  on  the  hills,  and  look  at  the 
stars,  as  God  made  them,  through  a  hole  in  my  blanket,  with 
my  own  good  eyes,  not  with  a  man-made  telescope,  or  fettered 
by  a  man-made  theory  ;  and  I  believe  in  the  stars  and  in  what 
they  teach  me :  but  if  I  were  to  say,  or  write  what  they  teach, 
that  would  be  a  human  creed  —  and  I  am  opposed  to  all 
creeds."  "Very  well,"  reply  the  examiners,  "  we  wish  you 
joy  in  the  possession  of  a  good  pair  of  eyes,  and  feel  it  unne- 
cessary to  go  any  further.  If  you  are  unwilling  to  confess 
your  faith,  we  will  not  tax  your  conscience  with  the  inconsist- 
ency of  teaching  that  faith,  nor  tax  our  own  with  the  hazard 
of  authorizing  you  to  set  forth  in  the  name  of  the  stars  your 
own  ignorant  assumptions  about  them." 

What  is  more  clear  than  that,  as  the  Rule  of  Faith  is  first, 
it  must,  by  necessity  of  its  being,  when  rightly  used,  generate 
a  true  faith  ?  But  the  man  who  has  true  faith  desires  to  have 
it  known,  and  is  bound  to  confess  his  faith.  The  Rule  cannot 
really  generate  two  conflicting  beliefs  ;  yet  men  who  alike  pro- 
fess to  accept  the  Rule,  do  have  conflicting  beliefs  ;  and  when 
beliefs  conflict,  if  the  one  is  formed  by  the  Rule,  the  other 
must  be  formed  in  the  face  of  it.  Fidelity  to  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  therefore,  fidelity  to  the  faith  it  teaches,  demands  that 
there  shall  be  a  Confession  of  the  faith.  The  firmest  friend  of 
the  Word  is  the  firmest  friend  of  the  Creed.  First,  the  Rule 
of  Faith,  next  the  Faith  of  the  Rule,  and  then  the  Confession 
of  Faith. 

What  shall  be  our  Confession  ?  Are  we  originating  a 
Church,  and  must  we  utter  our  testimony  to  a  world,  in  which 
our  faith  is  a  novelty  ?  The  reply  is  easy.  As  we  ^^,,,,t  shau  be 
are  not  the  first  who  have  used,  with  honest  hearts  our  confession  ? 
and  fervent  prayers,  the  Rule,  so  are  we  not  the  first  who  have 
been  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  it  to  its  faith.  As  men  long 
ago  reached  its  faith,  so  long  ago  they  confessed  it.  They  con- 
fessed it  from  the  beginning.  The  first  adult  baptism  was 
based  upon  a  "  human  creed,"  that  is,  upon  a  confession  of 
faith,  which  was  the  utterance  of  a  belief  which  was  based 


168  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 

upon  a  human  interpretation  of  divine  words.  The  faith  has 
been  confessed  from  the  beginning.  It  has  been  embodied  in  a 
creed,  the  origin  of  whose  present  shape  no  man  knows,  which 
indeed  cannot  be  fixed ;  for  it  rose  from  the  words  of  our 
Saviour's  Baptismal  Commission,  and  was  not  manufactured, 
but  grew.  Of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  of  Him  to  whom  its  heart 
is  given,  it  may  be  afiirmed  that  it  was  "  begotten,  not  made." 
The  Confession  has  been  renewed  and  enlar2:ed  to  meet  new 
and  widening  error.  The  ripest,  and  purest,  and  most  widely 
used  of  the  old  Confessions  have  been  adopted  by  our  Church 
as  her  own,  not  because  they  are  old  and  widely  received,  but 
because  they  are  true.  She  has  added  her  testimony  as  it  was 
needed.  Here  is  the  body  of  her  Confession.  Is  her  Confes- 
sion ours  ?  If  it  be,  we  are  of  her  in  heart ;  if  it  be  not,  we  are 
only  of  her  in  name.  It  is  ours  —  ours  in  our  deepest  convic- 
tion, reached  through  conflicts  outward  and  inward,  reached  upon 
our  knees,  and  traced  with  our  tears  —  ours  in  our  inmost  hearts. 
Therefore,  we  consecrate  ourselves  to  living,  teaching,  and  de- 
fending the  faith  of  God's  word,  which  is  the  confessed  faith  of 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  Fidelity  to  the  whole  truth 
of  God's  word  requires  this.  We  dare  not  be  satisfied  simply 
with  recognition  as  Christians  over  against  the  Jew,  because 
we  confess  that  the  Rule  of  Faith,  of  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  part,  has  taught  us  faith  in  Jesus  Christ :  we  dare 
not  be  satisfied  simply  with  recognition  as  holding  the  Catholic 
Faith  as  embodied  in  the  three  General  Creeds,  over  against  here- 
sies of  various  forms  and  shades.  Christian  believers  holdino: 
the  faith  Catholic  we  are  —  but  Ave  are,  besides,  Protestant, 
rejecting  the  authority  of  the  Papacy  ;  Evangelical,  glorying 
Distinctive  con-  iu  tlic  gracc  of  the  Gospel  ;  and  Lutheran,  holding 
fes.sion  necessary,  ^j^^  doctriucs  of  that  Church,  of  which  thc  Re- 
formation is  the  child  —  not  only  those  in  which  all  Christen- 
dom or  a  large  part  of  it  coincides  with  her,  but  the  most  dis- 
tinctive of  her  distinctive  doctrines,  though  in  the  maintenance 
of  them  she  stood  alone.  As  the  acceptance  of  the  Word  of 
God  as  a  Rule  of  Faith  separates  us  from  the  Mohammedan, 
as  the  reception  of  the  New  Testament  sunders  us  from  the 
Jew,  as  the  hearty  acquiescence  in  the  Apostles',  Nicene,  and 


FIDELITY  TO    THE    CONFESSIONS.  169 

Atlianasian  Creeds  shows  us,  in  the  face  of  all  errorists  of  the 
earlier  ages,  to  be  in  the  fiiith  of  the  Church  Catholic,  so  does 
our  unreserved  acceptance  of  the  Augsburg  Confc»ssion   mark 
us  as  Lutherans ;    and  the  acceptance  of  the  Apology,  the 
Catechisms  of  Luther,  the  Schmalcald  Articles,  and  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  continues  the  work  of   marking  our  separation 
from  all  errorists  of  every  shade  whose  doctrines  are  in  con- 
flict with   the  true  sense  of  the  Rule  of  Faith — that  Rule 
whose  teachings  are  rightly  interpreted  and  faithfully  embo- 
died in  the  Confessions  afore-mentioned.     Therefore,  God  help- 
ing us,  we  will  teach  the  whole  faith  of  His  word,  which  faith 
our  Church  sets  forth,  explains,  and  defends  in  her  Symbols. 
We  do  not  interpret  God's  word  by  the  Creed,  neither  do  we 
interpret  the  Creed  by  God's  word,  but  interpreting  both  inde- 
pendently, by  the  laws  of  language,  and  finding  that  they 
teach  one  and  the  same  truth,  we  heartily  acknowledge  the 
Confession  as  a  true  exhibition  of  the  faith  of  the  Rule  —  a 
true  witness  to  the  one,  pure,  and  unchanging  faith  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  freely  make  it  our  own  Confession,  as 
truly  as  if  it  had  been  now  first  uttered  by  our  lips,  or  had 
now  first  gone  forth  from  our  hands. 

In  freely  and  heartily  accepting  the  faith  of  our  Church,  as 
our  own  faith,  and  her  Scriptural  Confession  of  that  faith,  as 
our  own  Confession,  we  do  not  surrender  for  our-  j-ideuty  to  the 
selves,  any  more  than  we  take  from  others,  the  confessions  not 

i    .        ,.  ,,  .     -,  p  '        1        •      ■^  1.      inconsistent  with 

sacred  and  malienable  right  of  private  judgment,  the  right  of  rn- 
It  is  not  by  giving  up  the  right  of  private  judg-  vate judgment. 
ment,  but  by  the  prayerful  exercise  of  it,  not  by  relinquishing 
a  just  independence  of  investigation,  but  by  thoroughly  em- 
ploying it,  that  we  have  reached  that  faith  which  we  glory  in 
confessing.  Could  the  day  ever  come,  in  which  we  imagined 
that  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  had  abused  her  right 
of  private  judgment,  so  as  to  reach  error,  and  not  truth  by  it, 
we  should,  as  honest  men,  cease  to  bear  her  name,  or  to  con- 
nive at  what  we  would,  in  the  case  supposed,  believe  to  be 
error.  On  the  other  hand,  should  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  ever  have  evidence,  that  we  have  abused  our  right  of 
private  judgment  into  the  wrong  of  private  misjudgment,  so 


170  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION: 

as  to  have  reached  error,  and  not  truth  by  it,  then,  as  a  faithful 
Church,  after  due  admonition,  and  opportunity  for  repentance 
have  been  given  us  in  vain,  she  is  bound  to  cast  us  forth,  to 
purify  her  own  communion,  and  to  make  it  impossible  for  us, 
in  her  name,  to  injure  others.     As  the  individual,  in  exercising 
the  right  of  private  judgment,  is  in  peril  of  abusing  it,  the 
Church  has  the  right,  and  is  bound  by  the  duty,  of  self-defence 
against  that  abuse.     The  right  of  private  judgment  is  not  the 
right  of  Church-membership,  not  the  right  of  public  teach- 
ing, not  the  right  of  putting  others  into  an  equivocal  attitude 
to  what  they  regard  as  truth.     A  free  Protestant  Church  is  a 
Church,  whose  ministry  and  membership,  accepting  the  same 
rule  of  faith,  have,  in  the  exercise  of  their  private  judgment 
upon  it,  reached  the  same  results  as  to  all  truths  Avhich  they 
deem  it  needful  to  unite  in  confessing.     After  all  the  intricacies 
into  which  the  question  of,  AVhat  are  fundamentals  ?  has  run, 
there  can  be  no  practical   solution  better  than  this,  that  they 
are  such  truths,  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  it  is  neces- 
sary clearly  to  confess ;  truths,  the  toleration  of  the  errors 
opposing  which,  she  believes  to  be  inconsistent  with  her  fidelity 
to  the  Gospel  doctrine,  to  her  own  internal  harmony  and  high- 
est efficiency.     The  members  and  ministry  of  such  a  Church 
must  have  "  one  faith,"  as  they  have  one  Lord,  one  Baptism, 
and  one  God.     Apart  from  the  "  unity  of  the  faith,"  and  the 
"  unity  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,"  every  striving  to 
reach  "  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of 
the  fulness  of  Christ,"  will  be  vain ;  thus  only  can  Christian 
men  "  henceforth  be  no  more  children,  tossed  to  and  fro,  and 
carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men, 
and  cunning  craftiness,  whereby  they  lie  in  w^ait  to  deceive." 

A  great  deal  is  claimed  under  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment, which  is  a  most  impudent  infringement  of  that  right. 
A  man  is  a  Socinian,  a  Pelagian,  a  Romanist.  Very  well.  We 
maintain,  that  no  civil  penalties  should  restrain  him,  and  no 
ecclesiastical  inquisition  fetter  him.  Give  him,  in  its  fullest 
swing,  the  exercise  of  his  right  of  private  judgment.  But 
your  Socinian  insists  on  such  a  recognition  by  Trinitarians 
as  logically  implies,  that  they  either  agree  with  him  in  hia 


SUBSCRIPTION  TO  A    CONFESSION.  171 

error,  or  that  it  is  of  no  importance.  What  is  this  but  to  ask 
thousands  or  millions  to  give  up  or  imperil  the  results  of 
their  well-used  right  of  private  judgment,  at  the  call  of  one 
man,  who  abuses  his  ?  Could  impudence  go  further  ?  '  Go,' 
they  may  rightly  say,  '  with  your  right  of  private  ^^^^^^  ^^^^^ 
judgment,  go  where  you  belong,  and  cease  to  at-  of  the  right  r( 
tempt  the  shallow  jugglery,  by  which  one  man's  ^^'^^^'^  J"'^«- 
freedom  means  his  autocracy,  and  every  other  man's 
slavery.  If  your  right  of  private  judgment  has  made  you  an 
Atheist,  don't  call  yourself  a  Believer;  if  it  has  made  you  a 
Jew,  don't  pretend  to  be  a  Christian  ;  if  it  has  made  you  a 
Papist,  don't  pretend  to  be  a  Protestant ;  if  it  has  made  you  a 
Friend,  don't  call  yourself  a  Churchman.' 

When  we  confess,  that,  in  the  exercise  of  our  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment,  our  Bible  has  made  us  Lutherans,  Ave  neither 
pretend  to  claim  that  other  men  shall  be  made  Lutherans  by 
force,  nor  that  their  private  judgment  shall,  or  will,  of  neces- 
sity, reach  the  results  of  ours.  We  only  contend,  that,  if  their 
private  judgment  of  the  Bible  does  not  make  them  Lutherans, 
they  shall  not  pretend  that  it  does.  We  do  not  say,  that  any 
man  shall  believe  that  the  Confession  of  our  Church  is  Scrip- 
tural. We  only  contend,  that  he  should  neither  say  nor  seem 
to  say  so,  if  he  does  not  believe  it.  The  subscrip-  Meaning  ©f 
tion  to  a  Confession  is  simply  a  just  and  easy  mode  subscription  to  a 

■•^  "^        *^  *^  .        Confession. 

of  testifying  to  those  who  have  a  right  to  ask  it 
of  us,  that  we  are  what  we  claim  and  profess  to  be.  So  to 
sign  a  Confession  as  to  imply  that  we  are  what  we  are  not,  or 
to  leave  it  an  open  question  what  we  are,  is  not  the  just  result 
of  the  right  of  private  judgment,  or  of  any  right  whatever, 
but  is  utterly  w^rong.  For  it  is  a  first  element  of  truth,  with 
which  no  right,  private  or  public,  can  conflict,  that  names 
shJil  honestly  represent  things.  What  immorality  is  more 
patent  than  the  pretence  that  the  right  of  private  judgment 
is  something;  which  authorizes  a  man  to  make  his  whole  life  a 
falsehood  ;  is  something  w^hich  fills  the  world  with  names, 
which  no  longer  represent  things,  fills  it  wdth  black  things, 
that  are  called  white,  with  bitter  things,  that  are  called 
sweet,  and  with  lies,  that  are  called  truths,  with  monarchists, 


172  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

who  are  called  republicans,  with  Socinians,  who  are  called 
Trinitarians,  with  Arminians,  who  are  called  Calvinists,  w^ith 
Eomanists,  Rationalists,  fanatics,  or  sectarians,  who  are  called 
Lutherans  ? 

We  concede  to  every  man  the  absolute  right  of  private 
judgment  as  to  the  faith  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  if  he 
have  abandoned  the  faith  of  that  Church,  he  may  not  use  her 
name  as  his  shelter  in  attacking  the  thing  she  cherishes,  and 
in  maintaining  which  she  obtained  her  being  and  her  name. 
It  is  not  enough  that  you  say  to  me,  that  such  a  thing  is 
clear  to  your  private  judgment.  You  must  show  to  my  pri- 
vate judgment,  that  God's  word  teaches  it,  before  I  dare  recog- 
nize you  as  in  the  unity  of  the  faith.  If  you  cannot,  we 
have  not  the  same  faith,  and  ought  not  to  be  of  the  same 
communion  ;  for  the  communion  is  properly  one  of  persons  of 
the  same  faith.  In  other  words,  your  private  judgment  is  not 
to  be  my  interpreter,  nor  is  mine  to  be  yours.  If  you  think 
me  in  error,  I  have  no  right  to  force  myself  on  your  fellow- 
Bhip.  If  I  think  you  in  error,  you  have  no  right  to  force 
yourself  on  mine.  You  have  the  civil  right  and  the  moral 
right  to  form  your  impressions  in  regard  to  truth,  but  there 
the  right  stops.  You  have  not  the  right  to  enter  or  remain 
in  any  Christian  communion,  except  as  its  terms  of  member- 
ship give  you  that  right.  So  easy  is  this  distinction,  and  so 
clearly  a  part,  not  of  speculation,  but  of  practical  morals,  that 
the  law^  of  the  land  recognizes  it.  If  certain  men,  under  the 
style  and  title  of  a  Church,  which  imply  that  it  is  Calvinistic, 
call  an  Arminian  preacher,  the  law^  takes  that  Church  from 
an  Arminian  majority  which  calls  itself  Calvinistic,  and  gives 
it  to  a  Calvinistic  minority  which  is  what  it  calls  itself.  Does 
this  mean  that  the  majority  must  sacrifice  their  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment,  that  the  law  wishes  to  force  them  to  be  Cal- 
vinists? Xot  at  all.  It  simply  means,  that  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment  is  not  the  right  to  call  yourself  w^hat  you  are 
not,  and  to  keep  what  does  not  belong  to  you.  Put  your 
Arminians  under  their  true  colors,  though  in  minority,  and 
your  Calvinists  under  false  colors,  though  in  majority,  and  you 


THE  ABUSE    OF  PRIVATE  JUDGMENT.  173 

will  soon  see  how  easily  the  principle  of  this  law  of  morals 
and  of  this  law  of  the  land  adjusts  itself. 

Before  the  plain  distinctions  we  have  urged,  in  regard  to 
private  judgment,  go  down  all  the  evasions  hy  ^,^  _,^^^^  ^^ 
which  Rationalism  has  sought  to  defend  itself  from  pnvate judgment 
the  imputation  of  dishonor,  when  it  pretended  to  mlnnHiX  by  pe^ 
bear  the  Lutheran  name,  as  if  Lutheranism  were  ''*'"'*'''°- 
not  a  positive  and  well-defined  system  of  truth,  but  a  mere 
assertion  of  the  right  of  private  judgment.  It  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Reformation,  not  that  there  should  be  no  checks  upon 
the  abuse  of  private  judgment,  but  that  those  checks  should 
be  moral  alone.  The  Romanists  and  un-Lutheran  elements  in 
the  Reformation  were  agreed,  that  the  truth  must  be  main- 
tained and  heresy  extirpated  by  the  sword  of  government. 
Error  is  in  affinity  with  the  spirit  of  persecution.  The  first 
blood  shed  within  the  Christian  Church,  for  opinion's  sake, 
was  shed  hy  the  deniers  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Arians.  So  strong  was  the  feeling  in  the  primitive  Church 
against  violence  toward  errorists,  that  not  a  solitary  instance 
occurs  of  capital  punishment  for  heresy  in  its  earlier  era.  The 
Bishops  of  Gaul,  who  ordered  the  execution  of  the  Priscillian- 
ists,  though  the  lives  of  these  errorists  were  as  immoral  as 
their  teachings  were  abominable,  were  excluded  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church.  As  the  Western  Church  o-rew  cor- 
rupt,  it  grew  more  and  more  a  persecuting  Church,  till  it 
became  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints.  The  maxims 
and  spirit  of  persecution  went  over  to  every  part  of  the 
Churches  of  the  Reformation,  except  the  Lutheran  Church. 
Zwingle  countenanced  the  penalty  of  death  for  heresy.  What 
was  the  precise  share  of  Calvin  in  the  burning  of  Servetus  is 
greatly  mooted  ;  but  two  facts  are  indisputable.  One  is,  that, 
before  the  unhappy  errorist  took  his  fatal  journey,  Calvin  wrote, 
that,  if  Servetus  came  to  Geneva,  he  should  not  leave  it  alive, 
if  his  authority  availed  anything ;  the  other  is,  that,  after  the 
burning  of  Servetus,  Calvin  wrote  his  dissertation  defending 
the  right  of  the  magistrate  to  put  heretics  to  death  (1554.) 
The  Romish  and  Calvinistic  writers  stand  as  one  man  for  the 
right  and  duty  of  magistrates  to  punish  heresy  with  death, 


174  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

over  against  Luther  and  the  entire  body  of  our  theologians, 
who  maintain,  without  an  exception,  that  heresy  is  never  to 
be  punished  with  death.  The  Reformed  portion  of  Protest- 
antism has  put  to  death,  at  different  times  and  in  different 
ways,  not  only  Romanists  and  Anabaptists,  but  its  terrible 
energies  have  been  turned  into  civil  strife,  and  Episcopalians, 
Presbyterians,  and  Independents  put  each  other  to  death,  espe- 
cially in  the  great  civil  w^ars  of  England,  whose  origin  was 
largel}^  religious.  Strange  as  it  may  sound,  Socinians  them- 
selves have  been  persecutors,  and  yet  more  strange  is  the  ground 
on  which  they  persecuted.  The  original  Socinians  not  only  ac- 
knowledged that  Jesus  Christ  was  to  be  worshipped,  and  char- 
acterized those  who  denied  it  as  half  Jews,  but,  when  Francis 
David,  one  of  the  greatest  of  their  original  co-workers,  denied  it, 
the  old  man  was  cast  into  prison,  and  kept  there  till  he  died.  The 
Lutheran  Church  alone,  of  all  the  great  Churches  that  have 
had  the  power  to  persecute,  has  not  upon  her  skirts  one  drop 
of  blood  shed  for  opinion's  sake.  The  glorious  words  of  Lu- 
ther were :  "  The  pen,  not  the  fire,  is  to  put  down  heretics. 
The  hangmen  are  not  doctors  of  theology.  This  is  not  the 
place  for  force.     Not  the  sword,  but  the  word,  fits 

But   bv  denial     ^  i  i      i  i 

of  Church  rocog-  for  this  battle.  If  the  word  does  not  put  down 
''*"°"'  error,  error  would  stand,  though  the  world  were 

drenched  with  blood."  By  these  just  views,  centuries  in  ad- 
vance of  the  prevalent  views,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  stood, 
and  will  stand  forever.  But  she  is  none  the  less  earnest  in 
just  modes  of  shielding  herself  and  her  children  from  the 
teachings  of  error,  which  takes  cover  under  the  pretence  of  pri- 
vate judgment.  She  would  not  burn  Servetus,  nor,  for  opinion's 
sake,  touch  a  hair  of  his  head ;  neither,  however,  would  she 
permit  him  to  bear  her  name,  to  "  preach  another  Jesus  "  in 
her  pulpits,  to  teach  error  in  her  Universities,  or  to  approach 
with  her  children  the  table  of  their  Lord,  whom  he  denied. 
Her  name,  her  confessions,  her  history,  her  very  being  protest 
against  the  supposition  of  such  "  fellowship  with  the  works  of 
darkness,"  such  sympathy  with  heresy,  such  levity  in  regard 
to  the  faith.  She  never  practised  thus.  She  never  can  do  it. 
Those  who  imagine  that  the  right  of  private  judgment  is  the 


DENIAL    OF   CHRISTIAN  RECOGNITION         175 

right  of  men,  within  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  bearing  her 
hallowed  name,  to  teach  what  they  please  in  the  face  of  her 
testimony,  know  not  the  nature  of  the  right  they  claim,  nor  of 
the  Church,  whose  very  life  involves  her  refusal  to  Ijave  fellow- 
ship with  them  in  their  error.     It  is  not  the  right  of  private 
judgment  which  makes  or  marks  a  man  Lutlieran.     A  man 
may  have  the  right  to  judge,  and  he  a  simpleton,  as  he  may 
have  the  right  to  get  rich,  yet  may  remain  a  beggar.     It  is 
the  judgment  he  reaches  in  exercising  that  right  which  deter- 
mines what  he  is.     By  his  abuse  of  the  "  inalienable  rights  of 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  a  man  may  make 
himself  a  miserable  slave.     The  right  of  property  belongs  as 
much  to  the  man  who  makes  himself  a  beggar  as  to  the  man 
who  has  become  a  millionaire.     Rights,  in  themselves,  give 
nothing,  and  cannot  change  the  nature  of  things.     The  right 
to  gather,  gathers  nothing ;  and  if,  under  this  right,  the  man 
gathers  wood,  hay,  stubble,  neither  the  right  nor  its  exercise 
makes  them  into  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones.    The  Church 
will  not  put  any  violence  upon  him  who  chooses  to  gather  what 
will  not  endure  the  fire  ;  but  she  will  not  accept  them  as  jewels, 
nor  permit  her  children  to  be  cheated  with  them.     The  right 
of  private  judgment  and  the  right  of  Church  discipline  are 
co-ordinate  and  harmonious  rights,  essential  to  the  prevention, 
each  of  the  abuse  of  the  other.     To  uphold  either  intelligently, 
is  to  uphold  both.     In  maintaining,  therefore,  as  Protestants, 
the  right  and  duty  of  men,  in  the  exercise  of  private  judgment, 
to  form  their  own  convictions,  unfettered  by  civil  penalties  in 
the  State,  or  by  inquisitorial  powers  in  the  Church,  we  main- 
tain, also,  the  right  and  duty  of  the  Church  to  shield  herself 
from  corruption  in  doctrine  by  setting  forth  the  truth  in  her 
Confession,    by  faithfully   controverting   heresy,   by    personal 
warning  to  those  that  err,  and,  finally,  with  the  contumacious, 
by  rejecting  them  from  her  communion,  till,  through  grace, 
they  are  led  to  see  and  renounce  the  falsehood,  for  which  they 
claimed  the  name  of  truth. 

The  faith  of  the  Church,  drawn  from  the  rule  by  the  just 
exercise  of  private  judgment,  illumined  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
has  been  tested  and  developed  in  three  ways :  First,  by  science; 


176  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

next,  by  history ;  and  thirdly,  in  the  practical  life  of  the 
Church.  Science  has  shown,  in  the  glorious  edifice  of  our 
doctrinal  theology,  that  our  faith  has  the  grand 
demrto'fhrcon-  criterion  of  truth,  the  capacity  of  arrangement  in 
fessionsan  essen-  a  self-hamionizing  system.  Order  is  Heaven's  first 
!iogSurainin^  l^w.  As  tlic  law  of  the  physical  universe  is  mathe- 
matical, the  law  of  the  spiritual  universe  is  logical. 
That  which  has  no  place  in  system,  is  not  of  God,  is  not  truth. 
All  his  works  refiect  his  unity  and  self-consistency. 

To  fit  for  their  whole  w^ork,  men,  whom  God  shall  call, 
through  his  Church,  to  teach  the  Gospel  and  administer  the 
Sacraments,  involves,  in  its  most  perfect  form,  that  they  shall 
understand,  in  its  own  tongues,  the  Holy  Book,  to  the  teachings 
of  whose  truths  they  are  to  devote  themselves,  that  they 
should  see  those  truths  in  their  relations,  as  well  as  in  their 
isolation,  should  thoroughly  comprehend  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  which  is  built  upon  them,  and  should  be  able  to 
defend  the  truth,  and  the  faith,  which  is  its  inspiration.  The 
student  of  theology  must  be  taught  the  history  of  the  Church, 
in  order  to  comprehend  prophecy,  in  order  to  test  all  things, 
and  hold  fast  to  the  good,  and  in  order  to  comprehend  the 
force  and  value  of  the  dec  sions,  on  disputed  points,  w^hich  the 
Church  maintains  over  against  all  errorists.  lie  must  know 
the  history  of  the  past  in  order  to  live  in  the  life  of  to-day, 
which  is  the  outflowing  of  the  life  of  yesterday,  and  in  order 
to  reach  beyond  the  hour  into  that  solemn  to-morrow  of  the 
future,  which  is  to  be  the  outflowing  of  the  life  of  to-day.  For 
all  these  and  for  many  other  reasons,  the  student  of  theology 
must  master  the  great  facts  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  all 
time  ;  but  most  of  all,  the  history  of  our  own  Church,  the 
richest,  the  most  suggestive,  the  most  heart-inspiring  of  the 
whole. 

Looking  forward  to  the  position  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church, 
and  of  a  Counsellor  in  the  Synod,  the  student  of  theology 
needs  to  be  master  of  the  great  principles  of  Church  govern- 
ment, a  sphere  specially  important  to  our  Church  amid  the 
radicalism  and  anarchical  tendencies  of  the  hour.  The  Chris- 
tian Pastor  of  the  future  should  be  master  of  the  principles 


MINISTERIAL    EFFICIENCY.  VJl 

which  are  to  guide  him  in  his  vocation  as  guardian  of  the 
flock;  the  Preacher  o^  t\\Q  future  should  understand  the  theory, 
and  be  practically  trained  in  the  power  of  that  simple  but 
mighty  eloquence,  which  becomes  the  preaching  of  the  cross  ; 
the  Catechist  of  the  future  should  be  trained  for  the  great  work 
of  feediuir  the  lambs  ;  the  future  Ministrants  at  the  altars  of  the 
Most  High  should  be  shaped  in  the  tender,  trusting,  and  all- 
prevailing  spirit  of  worship,  which  God,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
kindles  in  his  saints,  the  devotion,  whose  flame  trembles 
upward  to  its  source,  in  the  humble  confessions,  in  the  holy 
songs,  and  in  the  fervent  prayers  of  the  Church,  all  hallowed 
by  the  memories  of  ages  of  yearning  and  aspiration.  If  we 
are  to  have  men  "  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  "  able  and  faith- 
ful ministers  of  the  [N'ew  Testament,"  they  must  be,  "  not 
novices,"  but  men  who  "  know  how  they  ought  to  behave 
themselves  in  the  house  of  God,"  "  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  all  good  works,"  "  holding  fast  the  faithful  word 
as  they  have  b^en  taught,  that  they  may  be  able,  by  sound 
doctrine,  both  to  exhort  and  to  convince  gainsayers,"  "  in  doc- 
trine showing  incorruptness." 

In  the  true  Christian  minister,  the  priesthood,  which  he 
holds  in  common  with  all  believers,  intensifies  ^uni^teriai  ef- 
itself  by  his  representative  character.  He  is  a  ficiency  depend- 
priest,  whose  lips  keep  knowledge,  at  whose  mouth 
they  should  seek  the  law,  for  he  is  the  "  messenger  of  the 
Lord  of  hosts."  We  want  men  apt  to  teach,  in  meekness 
instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves.  We  want  men 
of  decision,  ready  to  confront  those  "  whose  mouths  must  be 
stopped ;  who  subvert  whole  houses,  teaching  things  which 
they  ought  not,  for  filthy  lucre's  sake."  We  want  men,  who 
will  "hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words  ;  who  will  take  heed 
unto  themselves  and  the  doctrine,  and  continue  in  them,  know- 
ing, that,  in  doing  this,"  and  alone  in  doing  this,  "  they  shall 
both  save  themselves  and  them  that  hear  them;"  men,  who 
shall  "stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  with  one  mind  striving  together 
for  the  faith  of  the  gospel,"  "  earnestly  contending  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints;"  men,  "  like-minded  one 
toward  another,  speaking  the  same  thing,  with  no  divisions 

12 


178  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

among  them,  but  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind 
and  in  the  same  judgment." 

But,  with  all,  and  in  all,  and  above  all,  we  wish  to  send 
forth  men,  who  shall  be  living  illustrations  of  the  power  of 
the  gospel  they  preach  ;  men,  who  shall  show  the  oneness  and 
stability  of  a  true  faith,  ready  to  yield  preferences  to  secure 
principles,  to  make  the  sacrifices  of  love  to  the  consciences  of 
the  weak  in  things  indifferent,  and  to  stand  as  the  anvil  to 
the  beater  under  the  strokes  of  obloquy  and  misrepresentation. 
We  wish  men,  who  will  have  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ,  thrill- 
ing in  every  pulse  with  love  to  souls  ;  men  that  will  seek  the 
lowliest  of  the  lowly,  men  filled  with  the  spirit  of  missions, 
men  of  self-renunciation ;  men  open  as  the  day,  men  that 
abhor  deceit,  who  use  great  plainness  of  speech,  w^ho  speak  the 
truth  in  love  ;  men  who  are  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  "  gentle 
to  all  men,''  not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  yet  in  conflict 
with  the  "  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  rebuk- 
ing them  sharply,  that  they  may  be  sound  in  the  faith  ;  "  men 
so  glowing  with  love  of  the  gospel,  so  clear  in  their  judgment  as 
to  its  doctrines,  so  persuaded  that  life  and  death,  heaven  and 
hell,  hang  upon  its  pure  proclamation,  that  they  shall  be  ready 
to  say:  "Though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any 
other  gospel  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed,"  and  again,  in  the 
very  power  of  the  apostle's  iteration:  "As  I  said  before,  so 
say  I  now  again.  If  any  man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto 
you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be  aacursed."  It  is  in 
the  simple  Biblical  faith,  in  the  incorrupt,  profound,  and  self- 
harmonizing  system  of  doctrine,  in  the  historical  caution  and 
thoroughness,  in  the  heart -felt  piety,  in  the  reverential  spirit 
of  worship,  in  the  holy  activity  which  reaches  every  want  of 
the  souls  and  bodies  of  men,  in  fidelity  in  the  pulpit  and  pastoral 
life,  in  uncompromising  maintenance  of  sound  government,  in 
all  these,  which  belong  to  oar  Church,  it  is  in  these  the  men  of 
the  future  should  be  shaped.  We  would  have  them  grounded 
in  a  thorough  knowledge,  an  ardent  love,  a  practical  exhibition 
of  all  that  belongs  to  the  true  idea  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church,  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Christian,  and  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  pastor.     But  to  be  worthy  of  the  Church 


EJ^ASONS   FOR    CONFESSIONAL   BASIS.         179 

of  Christian  purity  and  of  Cliristian  freedom  to  which  tliey 
belong,  the  Church  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  of  Arndt  and 
Gerhard,  of  Spener  and  Francke,  of  Schwartz  and  Oberlin,  of 
Muhlenberg  and  Harms,  and  of  departed  worthies,  whose 
voices  yet  linger  in  our  ears,  they  need  a  faith  whose  Confea- 
eion  shall  be  as  articulate,  as  its  convictions  are  deep. 

This,  then,  is  a  summary  of  the  result  we  reach  :  The  basis 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  is  the  Word  of  God,  as 
the  perfect  and  absolute  Rule  of  Faith,  and  because  this  is  her 
basis,  she  rests  of  necessity  on  the  faith  of  which  that  Word  is 
the  Rule,  and  therefore  on  the  Confessions  which  purely  set 
forth  that  faith.  She  has  the  right  rule,  she  reaches  the  right 
results  by  the  rule,  and  rightly  confesses  them.  This  Confes- 
sion then  is  her  immediate  basis,  her  essential  char-  >,,„>,.  ary  of 
acteristic,  with  which  she  stands  or  falls.  The  ^^^"'^• 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apology,  the  Cate- 
chisms and  Schmalcald  Articles,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
have  been  formally  declared  by  an  immense  majority  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  as  their  Confession  of  Faith.  The  portion 
of  the  Church,  with  few  and  inconsiderable  exceptions,  which 
has  not  received  them  formally,  has  received  them  virtually. 
They  are  closely  cohering  and  internally  consistent  statements 
and  developments  of  one  and  the  same  system,  so  that  a  man 
who  heartily  and  intelligently  receives  any  one  of  the  distinc- 
tively Lutheran  Symbols,  has  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the 
doctrine  of  the  whole.  They  fairly  represent  the  Ke.suusro,  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  and  simply  and  solely  as  so  conf-ssiund  ra- 
representing  it  are  they  named  in  the  statement  of  ' 
the  basis  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  The  real 
question,  then,  is  this :  Ought  the  Church  to  rest  unreservedly 
and  unchangeably  on  this  faith  as  her  doctrinal  basis  ?  To 
this  question,  which  is  but  the  first  repeated  in  a  new  shape, 
we  reply,  as  we  replied  to  the  first.  She  ought. 

I.  She  ought  to  rest  on  that  basis,  because  that  Faith  of  our 
Church,  in  all  and  each  of  its  parts,  is  founded  on     i.itisfounded 
the  Word  of  God,  which  she  will  not  permit  to  be  on  gocv.  wcd. 
overruled,  either  by  the  speculations  of  corrupt  reason,  or  by 
the  tradition  of  a  corrupted  Church,  but  which  Word  she 


180  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

interprets  under  the  ordinary,  promised  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  a  Word  in  itself  absolutely  perfect  for  its  ends,  giving 
law  to  reason,  and  excluding  tradition  as  any  part,  direct  or 
indirect,  of  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

II.  The  proposition  we  have  just  advanced,  no  Lutheran,  in 
the  historical  sense  of  the  word,  can  deny ;  for  the  man  who 

2  It  belongs  would  dcuy  it,  would,  in  virtue  of  that  denial, 
to  historical  Ln-  provc  that  he  is  not  in  the  historical  sense  Luther- 
an ;  for  he,  and  he  only,  is  such  who  believes  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  is  rightly  taught  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  We  do  not  enter  into  the  question,  whether,  in 
some  sense,  or  in  what  sense,  a  man  who  denies  this  may  be 
some  kind  of  a  Lutheran.  We  only  affirm  that  he  is  not  such 
in  the  historical  sense  of  the  word ;  that  he  is  not  what  was 
meant  by  the  name  when  it  was  first  distinctively  used  —  that 
is,  not  a  Lutheran  whom  Luther,  or  the  Lutheran  Church  for 
three  centuries,  would  have  recognized  as  such,  nor  such  as 
the  vast  majori'  v  of  the  uncorrupted  portions  of  our  Church 
would  now  reco-iiizo. 

III.  That  many  of  the  Articles  of  Faith  set  forth  by  our 
Church  are  pure  and  Scriptural,  is  acknowledged  by  all  nominal 
Christendom  ;  that  an  immense  proportion  of  them  is  such,  is 
confessed  by  all  nominal  Protestants.     Zwingle  dechired  that 

3.  Commended  "t^^^re  wcrc  uo  mcu  ou  carth  whose  fellowship  he  so 
by  other  Cum-  dcsircd  as  that  of  the  Wittenbergers.  Calvin  sub- 
scribed  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  and  acted 
as  a  Lutheran  minister  under  it.  "  Xor'do  I  repudiate  the  Auga- 
])urg  Confession  (which  I  long  ago  willingly  and  gladly  sub- 
scribed) as  its  author  has  interpreted  it."  So  wrote  Calvin,  in 
1557,  to  Schalling.  Two  mistakes  are  often  made  as  to  his 
meaning,  in  these  much-quoted  words.  First:  The  Confession 
he  subscribed  was  not  the  Yariata.  Calvin  subscribed  at  Stras- 
burg,in  1539.  The  Variata  did  not  appear  till  1540.  Second: 
lie  does  not  mean  nor  say  that  he  theii  subscribed  it  as  its 
author  had  explained  it.  There  was  no  word  of  its  author  then, 
which  even  seemed  in  conflict  with  its  oris^inal  sense.  Calvin 
means:  Nor  do  I  now  repudiate  it,  as  its  author /kz^Muterpreted 
it.    The  orreat  Reformed  divines  liave  acknowledored  that  it  has 


ESSENTIAL    UNION  IN  FUNDAMENTALS.         181 

not  a  fundamental  error  in  it.  The  only  error  they  charge  on 
it,  they  repeatedly  declare  to  be  non-fundamental.  Testing  all 
Churches  by  the  concessions  of  their  adversaries,  there  is  not  so 
safe  and  pure  a  Church  in  existence  as  our  own.  But  not  only 
in  the  Articles  conceded  by  adversaries,  but  in  those  which  are 
most  strictly  distinctive  of  our  Church,  and  which  have  been 
the  object  of  fiercest  assault,  is  she  pure  and  Scriptural,  as,  for 
example,  in  regard  to  the  Person  of  Christ  and  the  Sacraments. 
•  IV.  To  true  unity  of  the  Church,  is  required  hearty  and 
honest  consent  in  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  or,  in 
other  Tvords,  in  the  Articles  of  Faith.  It  may  surprise  some, 
that  we  qualify  the  word  doctrine  by  the  word  ^'-fan-  ^  Essential  to 
damental; "  for  that  word,  in  the  history  of  the  ""'»"  '"  ^""''a- 
Church,  has  been  so  bandied  about,  so  miserably 
perverted,  so  monopolized  for  certain  ends,  so  twisted  by  arti- 
fices of  interpretation,  as  if  a  man  could  use  it  to  mean  any- 
thing he  pleased,  and  might  fairly  insist  that  its  meauing  could 
only  be  settled  by  reference  to  his  own  mental  reservation  at 
the  time  he  used  it,  that  at  length  men  have  grown  afraid  of 
it,  have  looked  upon  its  use  as  a  mark  of  lubricity,  and  have 
almost  imagined  that  it  conveyed  an  idea  unknow^n  to  our 
Church  in  her  purer  days.  Nevertheless,  it  convej's  a  good  old- 
fashioned  Biblical  and  Lutheran  idea — an  idea  set  forth  in  the 
Confession  of  the  Church,  constantly  presented  by  our  old  Theo- 
logians, and  by  no  means  dangerous  when  honestly  and  intelli- 
gently used.  Thus  the  Apology  says :  ''  The  Church  retains 
the  pure  gospel,  and,  as  Paul  says,  (1  Cor.  iii.  12,)  the  founda- 
tion^ (fundamentum,)  that  is,  the  true  knowledge  of  Christ 
and  faith.  Although  in  this  Church  there  are  many  who  are 
weak,  who  '  build  upon  this  foundation^  w^ood,  hay,  stubble,' 
who,  nevertheless,  do  not  overthrow  the  foundation^  they  are 
still  Christians."* 

It  is  utterly  false  that  Evangelical  Lutherans  are  sticklers 
for  non-fundamentals,  that  they  are  intolerant  toward  those 
who  err  in  regard  to  non-fundamentals  ;  on  the  contrary,  no 
Church,  apart  from  the  fundamentals  of  the  gospel  in  which 
her  unity  and  very  life  are  involved,  is  so  mild,  so  mediating, 

*  Apology,  (Miiller,)  p.  156. 


182  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

so  thoroughly  tolerant  as  our  own.  Over  against  the  unity  of 
Rome  under  a  universal  Head,  the  unity  of  High-Churchism 
under  the  rule  of  Bishops,  the  unities  which  turn  upon  like 
rites  or  usages  as  in  themselves  necessary,  or  which  build  up 
the  mere  subtleties  of  human  speculation  into  articles  of  faith, 
over  against  these  the  Lutheran  Church  was  the  first  to  stand 
forth,  declaring  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  turns  upon 
nothing  that  is  of  man.  "Where  the  one  pure  gospel  of  Christ 
is  preached,  where  the  one  foundation  of  doctrine  is  laid, 
where  the  "  one  faith  "  is  confessed,  and  the  alone  divine  Sac- 
raments administered  aright,  there  is  the  one  Church  ;  this  is 
her  unity.  As  the  Augsburg  Confession  *^  declares :  "  The 
Church,  properly  so  called,  hath  her  notes  and  marks,  to  wit: 
the  jnire  and  sound  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  the  right  use  of 
the  Sacraments.  And,  for  the  true  unity  of  the  Church,  it  is 
sufficient  to  agree  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  the 
administration  of  the  Sacraments." 

Our  fathers  clearly  saw  and  sharply  drew  the  distinction 
between  God's  foundation  and  man's  superstructure,  between 
the  essential  and  the  accidental,  between  faith  and  opinion, 
between  religion  and  speculative  theology,  and,  with  all  these 
distinctions  before  them,  declared,  that  consent  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  gospel  and  the  right  administration  of  the  Sacraments 
is  the  only  basis  of  the  unity  of  the  Church.  This  basis,  the 
Lutheran  Church  has  defined  and  rests  on  it,  to  abide  there, 
we  trust,  by  God's  grace,  to  the  end  of  time. 

In  this  basis  of  unity  is  implied,  first  of  all,  that,  in  a  really 
united  Church,  there  shall  be  agreement  as  to  what  subjects 
of  the  gospel  teaching  are  to  be  considered  its  doctrine,  or 
articles  of  faith,  or  fundamentals,  (for  all  these  terms  are  here 
practically  synonymous,)  and  not  either  mere  matters  of  opin- 
ion, or  of  secondary  importance. 

It  is  no  evidence  that  two  men  or  two  parts  of  a  Church  are 
really  in  unity  because  they  say  a  certain  creed  is  right  on  fun- 
damcntcds,  if  it  be  not  certain  that  they  agree  as  to  v:hat  sub- 
jects of  the  gospel  teaching  are  fundamentaL  The  Socinian  and 
Trinitarian  are  in  unity  of  faith,  and  could  alike  accept  the 

*  Art.  vii. 


ESSENTIAL    UNION  IN  FUNDAMENTALS.         183 

Augsburg  Confession  as  their  creed,  if  it  be  granted  that  the 
Trinity  is  no  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  no  article  of  faith,  no  fun- 
damental, but  a  mere  nicety  of  theological  speculation,  or  some 
thing,  which  the  Scripture,  if  it  sets  it  forth  at  all,  sets  forth 
in  no  vital  relation  to  its  essential  truths.  Before  a  Socinian 
and  Trinitarian,  therefore,  can  honestly  test  their  unity  by  a 
formula,  which  declares  that  they  agree  in  fundamentals,  they 
must  settle  what  are  fundamentals.  Otherwise  the  whole 
thing  is  a  farce.  Any  formula  of  agreement  on  "  funda- 
mentals," which  leaves  it  an  open  question  what  are  funda- 
mentals, is  delusive  and  dishonest,  and  will  ultimately  breed 
dissension  and  tend  to  the  destruction  of  the  Church.  We 
protest,  therefore,  alike  against  the  basis  which  does  not  pro- 
pose the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel  as  essential  to 
unity,  and  the  basis,  which,  professing  to  accept  the  gospel 
fundamentals  as  its  constituent  element,  is,  in  any  degree 
whatever,  dubious,  or  evasive,  as  to  what  subjects  of  gospel- 
teaching  are  fundamental,  or  which,  pretending  to  define  them, 
throws  amono;  non-fundamentals  what  the  Word  of  God  and 
the  judgment  of  His  Church  have  fixed  as  Articles  of  Faith. 
On  such  a  point  there  should  be  no  evasion.  Divine  Truth  is 
the  end  of  the  Church ;  it  is  also  her  means.  She  lives  for  it, 
and  she  lives  by  it.  What  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 
regards  as  fundamental  to  gospel  doctrine,  that  is,  what  her 
existence,  her  history,  her  Confessions  declare  or  justly  imply 
to  be  her  articles  of  faith,  these  ought  to  be  accepted  as  such 
by  all  honorable  men,  who  bear  her  name. 

But  it  is  sometimes  said,  by  very  good  men,  as  a  summary 
answer  to  the  whole  argument  for  Confessions  of  Faith,  that 
the  very  words  of  Scripture  are  a  better  Creed,  than  any  we 
can  substitute  for  them  ;  better,  not  only,  as  of  course  they  are, 
on  the  supposition  that  our  words  are  incorrect,  but  better  even 
if  our  words  are  correct ;  for  our  best  words  are  man's  words, 
but  its  words  are  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  this  ar- 
gument, although  it  looks  specious,  is  sophistical  to  the  core. 
The  very  words  of  Scripture  are  not  simply  a  better  Rule  of 
Faith  than  any  that  can  be  substituted  for  them,  but  they  are 
the  absolute  and  only  Rule  of  Faith,  for  which  nothing  can 


184  CONSERVATIVE    REFORM  ATI  OK 

be  substituted.  But  the  object  of  a  Creed  is  not  to  find  out 
\vliat  God  teaches,  (we  go  to  the  Bible  for  that,)  but  to  show 
what  w^e  believe.  Hence  the  moment  I  set  forth  even  the  very 
Fidelity  to  the  words  of  the  Bible  as  r???/  Creed,  the  question  is  no 
Confession    not  iQijo;er  what  docs  the  Holy  Ghost  mean  by  those 

inconsistint  c^  »'  *: 

with  the  su-  words,  but  what  do  I  mean  by  them.  You  ask 
preme Authority       xjuitariau,  AVhat  do  you  believe  about  Christ. 

of  the   llule   of  i  ^ 

Faith.  He  replies:  "I  believe  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God." 

These  are  the  very  words  of  the  Bible;  but  the  point 
is  not  at  all  now,  w^hat  do  they  mean  in  the  Bible  ?  but  what 
do  they  mean  as  a  Unitarian  creed?  In  the  Hide  of  Faith, 
they  mean  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  second  person  of  the  Trin- 
ity incarnate  ;  in  the  Unitarian  Creed,  they  mean  that  there  is 
no  Trinity,  and  that  our  Lord  is  a  mere  man.  All  heretics,  if 
you  probe  them  with  the  very  words  of  the  Bible,  admit  that 
these  words  are  the  truth.  The  Universalists  for  example, 
concede,  that  the  "wncked  go  away  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment." Now  I  know  that  in  the  Bible,  the  Bale  of  Faith,  these 
words  mean,  a  punishment  without  end;  and  I  know  just  as 
well,  that  these  identical  words  as  a  Universalist  creed,  mean, 
no  future  punishment  at  all,  or  one  that  does  end.  Yet  with 
the  fallacy  of  which  we  speak,  do  men  evade  the  argument, 
for  a  clear,  well-defined,  and  unmistakable  creed. 

The  truth  is  that  correct  human  explanations  of  Scripture  doc- 
trine are  Scripture  doctrine,  for  they  are  simply  the  statement 
of  the  same  truth  in  diff'erent  words.  These  words  are  not  in 
themselves  as  clear  and  as  good  as  the  Scripture  terms,  but  as 
those  who  use  them  can  absolutely  fix  the  sense  of  their  own 
phraseology  by  a  direct  and  infallible  testimony,  the  human 
words  may  more  perfectly  exclude  heresy  than  the  divine 
words  do.  The  term  "  Trinity,"  for  example,  does  not,  in  itself, 
as  clearly  and  as  well  express  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  as  the 
terms  of  the  Word  of  God  do ;  but  it  correctly  and  compen- 
diously states  that  doctrine,  and  the  triflcr  who  pretends  to  re- 
ceive the  Bible,  and  yet  rejects  its  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  can- 
not pretend  that  he  receives  what  the  Church  means  by  the 
word  Trinity.  While  the  Apostles  lived  the  Word  was  both 
a  rule  of  faith,  and  in  a  certain  sense,  a  confession  of  it ;  when 


FIDELITY   TO    THE    CONFESSIONS.  185 

by  direct  inspiration  a  holy  man  utters  certain  words,  they  are 
to  him  both  a  rale  of  faith,  and  a  confession  of  faith  — they  at 
once  express  both  what  he  is  to  believe  and  what  he  does 
believe  ;  but  when  the  Canon  was  complete,  when  its  authors 
were  gone,  wlien  the  living  teacher  was  no  longer  at  hand  to 
correct  the  errorist  who  distorted  his  word,  the  Church  entered 
on  her  normal  and  abiding  relation  to  the  Word  and  the  Creed 
which  is  involved  in  these  words:  the  Bible  is  the  rule  of  faith, 
but  not  the  confession  of  it ;  the  Creed  is  not  the  rule  of  faith, 
but  is  the  confession  of  it.  A  Lutheran  is  a  Christian  whose 
rule  of  faith  is  the  Bible,  and  whose  creed  is  the  Augsburg 
Confession. 

To  what  end  then  is  the  poor  sophism  constantly  iterated, 
that  the  Confession  is  a  "  human  explanation  of  divine  doc- 
trine"? So  is  the  faith  of  every  man  —  all  that  he  deduces 
from  the  Bible.  There  is  no  personal  Christianity  in  the  world 
which  is  not  the  result  of  a  human  explanation  of  the  Bible 
as  really  as  the  Confession  of  our  Church  is.  It  is  human  be- 
cause it  is  in  human  minds,  and  human  hearts, — it  is  not  a 
source  to  which  we  can  finally  and  absolutely  appeal  as  w^e  can 
to  God's  word.  But  in  exact  proportion  as  the  word  of  God 
opened  to  the  soul  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
truly  and  correctly  apprehended,  just  in  that  proportion  is  the 
"  human  explanation  "  coincident  with  the  divine  truth.  I  ex- 
plain God's  truth,  and  if  I  explain  it  correctly,  my  explanation 
is  God's  truth,  and  to  reject  the  one  in  unbelief,  is  to  reject 
the  other.  "  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven,"  is  a  human  ex- 
planation by  certain  English  scholars  of  certain  words  used 
by  our  Lord  ;  but  they  are  correct  explanations,  and  as  such 
are  as  really  divine  as  those  sounds  in  Aramaic  or  Greek  which 
fell  from  the  lips  of  our  Lord.  The  difterence  is  this :  His 
words  are  absolutely  final  ;  they  are  themselves  the  source  of 
truth,  beyond  which  we  cannot  rise.  Our  English  words  are 
to  be  tested  by  his  —  and  when  we  believe  they  truly  represent 
his,  we  receive  them  as  his.  For  the  essence  of  the  word  is  not 
its  sound,  but  its  sense. 

Our  English  translation  of  the  Bible  is  a  human  explanation 
of  a  certain  humanly  transcribed,  humanly  printed  text,  the 


186  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

original ;  which  original  alone,  just  as  the  sacred  penman  left  it, 
is  absolutely  in  every  jot  and  tittle  God's  Word;  but  just  in 
proportion  as  our  translation  is  based  upon  a  pure  text  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  correctly  explains  the  meaning  of  such 
an  original,  it  too,  is  God's  Word.  Our  sermons  are  human 
explanations  of  God's  Word,  but  so  far  as  they  explain  it  cor- 
rectly, they  do  set  forth  God's  Word,  and  he  who  hears  us, 
hears  our  Lord.  Our  Confession  is  a  human  explanation  of 
God's  Word,  but  so  far  as  it  correctly  explains  it,  it  sets  forth 
God's  Word.  The  man  who  regards  it  as  a  correct  explana- 
tion, or  as  "  a  summarj^  and  just  exhibition  "  of  the  doctrines 
of  which  it  treats,  is  consistently  a  Lutheran.  I^o  other  man 
is.  If  any  man  can  define  Lutheran  consistency  in  any  better 
way,  w^e  should  be  glad  to  have  him  do  it ;  and  if  he  thinks 
human  explanations  are  something  antagonistic  to  scriptural 
doctrine,  we  wish  to  know,  if  he  be  a  clergyman  or  a  Sunday- 
school  teacher,  or  a  father,  why  he  spends  so  many  Sundays 
in  the  year  in  setting  forth  his  "  human  explanation "  to 
his  people  or  his  class  or  his  children,  instead  of  teaching 
them  Hebrew  and  Greek.  If  he  says  that  he  believes  that  the 
"  human  explanations"  of  the  authorized  version  he  reads, and 
of  the  sermons  he  preaches  to  his  people,  or  the  instructions  he 
gives  to  his  pupils  or  his  children,  are  scriptural,  because  they 
agree  with  Scripture,  we  ask  him  to  believe  that  his  church  in 
her  faith,  that  the  "  human  explanations"  of  her  Confession 
(framed  in  earnest,  prayerful  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
in  the  promised  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit)  are  correct  and  scrip- 
tural, may  have  as  much  to  justify  her  as  he  has  in  his  con- 
fidence in  his  own  sermons,  or  his  own  lessons.  We  do  not 
claim  that  our  Confessors  were  infallible.  We  do  not  say  they 
could  not  fail.     We  only  claim  that  they  did  not  fail. 

Those  who  smile  at  the  utterance  of  a  devout  Father  of  the 
Fidelity  to  the  Church  :  '  I  believe  it,  because  it  is  impossible  ' — 
Conffssions,  not  gmilc  bccausc  they  do  not  understand  him;  yet 
there  would  seem  to  be  no  solution  but  that  given 
in  the  absurdest  sense  of  his  words,  for  an  objection  sometimes 
made  to  a  hearty  acceptance  of  the  Lutheran  Confession  —  to 
wit,  that  such  an  acceptance  is  Romanizing.     Yet  there  are 


FIDELITY   TO    TUB    CONFESSIONS.  187 

those  who  affect  to  believe  that  men  who  maintain  the  duty 
of  an  honorable  consistency  with  the  Confessions  of  our  Church, 
are  cherishing  a  Romish  tendency.  If  this  meant  that  the  doc- 
trines of  our  Church  really  have  this  tendency,  then  it  would  be 
the  duty  of  all  sound  Protestants  to  disavow  those  doctrines, 
and  with  them  the  name  of  the  church  with  which  they  are 
inseparably  connected.  While  men  call  themselves  Lutherans, 
that  fact  will  go  further  before  the  unthinking  world  in  favor 
of  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  than  all  their  protestations  will 
go  against  them.  If  the  Lutheran  Church  be  a  Romanizing 
Church,  we  ought  neither  to  bear  the  stigma  of  her  name,  nor 
promote  her  work  of  mischief  by  giving  her  such  aid  as  may 
be  derived  from  our  own.  But  if  the  charge  meant  that  those 
stigmatized  have  this  Romish  tendency,  because  they  are  not 
true  to  the  Confessions  of  our  Church,  the  thing  really  implied 
is,  that  they  are  not  Lutheran  enough  —  in  other  words,  that 
the  danger  of  apostasy  is  connected,  not  with  fidelity  to 
the  Confession,  but  with  want  of  fidelity.  If  this  were  the 
ponit  which  it  is  meant  to  press,  we  would  heartily  agree  with 
those  who  press  it ;  and  we  would  help  them  with  every  energy, 
to  detect  and  expose  those  who  w^ould  cloak  their  Romanism 
under  a  perversion  of  our  Confession,  as  others  defend  their 
fanaticism  and  heresies,  under  the  pretence  that  the  Confession 
is  in  error.  As  genuine  Lutheranism  is  most  Biblical  among 
systems  which  professedly  ground  themselves  on  the  supreme 
authority  of  God's  word  ;  as  it  is  most  evangelical  among  the 
systems  that  magnify  our  Saviour's  grace,  so  is  our  Church  at 
once  most  truly  Catholic  among  all  churches  which  acknowl- 
edge that  the  faith  of  God's  people  is  one,  and  most  truly  Prot- 
estant among  all  bodies  claiming  to  be  Protestant.  She  is  the 
mother  of  all  true  Protestantism.  Her  Confession  at  Augs- 
burg, is  the  first  ofiicial  statement  of  Scriptural  doctrine  and 
usage  ever  issued  against  Romish  heresy  and  corruption.  Her 
confessions  are  a  wall  of  adamant  against  Romanism.  The 
names  of  Luther  and  her  heroes  who  are  among  the  dead,  still 
hold  the  first  place  among  those  of  the  opponents  of  Rome. 
The  doctrines  of  our  Church  have  proved  themselves  the  most 
mighty  of  all    doctrines   in   winning  men   from    Rome,   and 


188  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Strongest  of  all  doctrines  in  fixing  the  hearts  of  men,  as  a  bul- 
wark against  all  her  efforts  to  regain  the  ground  she  had  lost. 
The  anathemas  of  the  Council  of  Trent  are  almost  all  levelled 
at  our  Church  ;  her  soldiers  have  poured  forth  their  blood  on 
the  battle-field,  and  the  spirits  of  her  martyrs  have  taken 
flight  from  the  scafibld  and  the  stake,  in  preserving,  amid 
Romish  consi^iracies  and  persecution,  the  truth  she  gave  them. 
Without  our  Church,  there  would  be,  so  far  as  human  sight 
may  pierce,  no  Protestantism  on  the  face  of  the  earth  at  this 
hour,  and  without  her  Confession  she  would  have  perished 
from  among  men.  It  cannot  be  that  loyalty  to  the  Protest- 
antism she  made  and  saved,  can  demand  treachery  to  that  by 
which  she  made  and  saved  it.  It  cannot  be  that  fidelity  to  the 
truth  which  overthrew  Romanism,  can  involve  connivance 
with  Romanism  itself. 

But  there  are  others  who,  acknowledging  for  themselves  the 
force  of  all  that  can  be  urs-ed  for  the  Confessions,  and  not  un- 
willing  for  themselves  to  adopt  them,  look  with  desponding 
eye  on  the  facts  which  seem  to  them  to  show  that  there  can 
be  no  large  general  acceptance  in  this  country,  so  unchurchly 
and  unhistoric  as  it  is,  of  these  Confessions.  Were  we  to  grant 
the  gloomiest  supposition  possible,  that  would  not  afi:ect  our 
duty.  Suppose  it  were  true,  that  the  arguments  for  the  pure 
doctrine  of  the  Confessions  seem  to  have  little  weight  wdth  men, 
shall  we  cease  to  urge  them?  After  !N'ineteen  Centuries  of 
struggle,  Christianity  is  in  minority  in  the  world.  After  the 
evidences  of  Christianity  have  been  urged  for  some  three  cen- 
turies, there  are  many  deists,  more  open  and  avowed  even  than 
at  the  Reformation.  After  centuries  of  argument  for  the 
Trinity,  there  are,  perhaps,  more  Socinians  than  ever.  After 
three  centuries,  in  which  the  pure  doctrine  of  justification  has 
been  urged,  millions  in  the  Romish  Church  and  very  many 
nominal  Protestants  reject  it.  With  all  the  arguments  for  in- 
fant baptism,  with  the  proofs  urged  so  long  and  so  ably  for  the 
validity  of  other  modes  of  Baptism  than  immersion,  how  many 
millions  of  Baptists  there  are !  With  the  clear  testimony  of 
Scripture  and  History  for  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  two 
Sacraments,  how  many  Friends  there  are  (and  their  number  is 


WIDE    CUE  EDS.  189 

increasing  in  Great  Britain,)  who  deny  it  altogether !  How 
little  headway  a  pure  and  consistent  faith  in  the  gospel  makes, 
after  so  many  centuries !  But  what  have  we  to  do  with  all 
this?  Oar  business  is  to  hold  and  urge  the  truth  in  all  its 
purity,  whether  men  will  hear,  or  whether  tliey  will  forbear. 
Truth  will,  at  length,  reach  its  aim  and  do  its  work.  The 
faithful  defence  of  the  most  bitterly  contested  doctrines  has,  for 
centuries,  helped  to  keep  millions  sound  in  the  faith,  and  has 
reclaimed  many  that  had  wandered.  This  very  time  of  ours 
has  seen  the  revival  of  the  faith  of  our  Church  from  all  the 
thraldom  of  rationalism.  In  the  masses  of  the  people,  and 
among  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  age,  intense  faith  has 
been  reproduced  in  the  very  doctrines  of  the  Confession,  which 
find  the  greatest  obstacles  in  the  weakness  of  human  nature 
or  in  the  pride  of  the  heart  of  man. 

But  if  we  must  have  a  Creed,  it  is  sometimes  urged,  why 
have  one  less  comprehensive  than  Christianity  in  its  widest 
sense  ?  Why  have  a  Creed  which  will  exclude  from  a  particular 
church,  any  man  whom  we  acknowledge  possibly  to  be  a 
Christian?     Why  exclude  from  the  Church  mili- 

^  "^  f>    .  1  Wide  Creeds. 

tant,  or  irom  our  part  oi  it,  the  man  w^e  expect  to 
meet  in  the  glories  of  the  Church  triumphant  ?  Does  not  such 
a  course  set  up  a  claim  for  the  particular  Church,  as  if  it  were 
the  Church  universal  ?  Does  it  not  substitute  a  sectarian 
orthodoxy  for  a  Christian  one?  This  theory,  which  logically 
runs  into  the  assertion  that  no  particular  church  should  exclude 
from  its  communion  any  but  those  who,  it  is  prepared  to  assert, 
will  certainly  be  lost,  is,  if  fairly  put,  hardly  specious,  and  in 
the  adroitness  of  the  many  ways  in  which  it  actually  meets 
us  is  merely  specious.  It  goes  upon  a  body  of  false  assump- 
tions. The  Church  is  not  merely  designed,  as  this  theory 
assumes,  to  bring  into  outward  association,  men  who  are  to  get 
to  heaven,  but  its  object  is  to  shed  upon  the  race  every  kind 
of  blessing  in  the  present  life.  The  Church  is  bound  to  have 
regard  in  her  whole  work,  and  in  her  whole  s[)liere,  to  her 
entire  mission  —  even  though  it  should  require  the  exclusion 
of  a  man  whose  imbecility,  ignorance,  and  erratic  perverseness 
God  may  forgive,  but  which  would  ruin  the  Church. 


190  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

What  is  Christianity  in  its  "  widest  "  sense  ?  How  "  wide  " 
must  it  be?  Is  ^[ohammedanism  a  corrupt  Christianity? 
Is  every  Unitarian,  every  Pelagian,  every  Swedenborgian,  lost? 
Has  a  ''  wide  "  Christianity,  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper? 
If  it  has,  it  excludes  Elizabeth  Fry,  and  Joseph  John  Gurney, 
because  they  were  Friends.  If  it  has  not,  it  tramples  on  our 
Lord's  commands.  Can  a  particular  Church  which  holds  that 
Immersion  is  not  a  necessary  mode,  be  the  home  of  a  man  who 
teaches  that  it  is  ?  As  long  as  there  is  a  man  in  the  world  who 
wishes  to  make  Christianity  "  wider"  than  you  do,  you  must 
yield,  unless  you  feel  sure  that  the  man  must  be  lost.  What ! 
will  you  have  your  Church  so  narrow,  that  he  who  is  to  get  to 
heaven  shall  not  be  of  it  ?  Never,  if  you  wish  to  be  consistent. 
The  moment  you  do  it,  you  have  your  Church  militant 
which  excludes  a  part  of  the  Church  triumphant. 

But  the  theory  assumes  another  great  fallacy  —  which  is, 
that  there  is  some  fixed  standard  of  responsibility,  some  ascer- 
FaiiacieHofthe  taiuablc  minimum  of  what  is  necessary  to  salva- 
argument.  ^|qj-j^  [^^  i\^q  qq^qq  of  cack  man.     But  there  is  no  such 

standard:  the  responsibility  has  a  wide  range,  for  it  embraces, 
except  in  the  extremest  cases  of  ignorance  and  weakness,  far 
more  than  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  every  man.  Much  is 
required  from  him  to  whom  ranch  is  given.  He  only  has  merely 
the  responsibility  which  belongs  to  every  man,  who  has  no  more 
than  that  which  is  given  to  every  man.  He  who  has  all  the 
opportunity  of  knowing  God's  whole  truth,  and  God's  whole 
will,  will  not  be  saved  on  the  standard  of  the  Caffre  or  the 
Digger.  To  make  that  which  is  essential  to  every  man  the 
standard,  to  put  it  at  the  minimum  at  which  any  creature 
could  be  saved,  would  be  to  encourage  the  lowering  of  the 
faith  and  life  of  millions,  to  reach  at  best  a  few  cases.  But 
even  in  this  minimum,  particular  Churches  would  differ  —  and 
still  some  would  exclude  from  the  Church  militant,  those 
whom  others  regarded  as  possibly  part  of  the  Church  tri- 
umphant. 

There  is  another  fallacy  involved  in  this  theory.  The  Creed 
does  not,  as  this  theory  assumes,  exclude  from  membership  those 
who  merely  have  a  defective  faith  —it  is  only  those  who  teach 


EXCOMMUNICATION- FORCE    AND    EXTENT.       191 

against  a  part  of  the  faith  or  deny  it  publicly  whom  it  shuts  out. 
Ignorance  and  mental  imbecility  may  prevent  many  from  com- 
prehending certain  parts  of  a  system,  but  no  particular  church, 
however  rigid,  designs  to  exclude  such  from  its  Conmiunion. 

The  theory  ignores  the  fact  that  the  Church  should  make 
the  standard  of  faith,  and  morals,  the  highest  possible,  not  the 
lowest.  She  should  lead  men,  not  to  the  least  faith,  the  least 
holiness  which  makes  salvation  possible,  but  to  the  very  high- 
est—  she  should  not  encourage  the  religion  whose  root  is  a 
selfish  fear  of  hell,  a  selfish  craving  of  heaven,  but  she  should 
plant  that  religion  to  which  pure  truth  is  dear  for  its  own 
sake,  which  longs  for  the  fullest  illumination,  which  desires 
not  the  easy  road,  but  the  sure  one. 

This  theory,  too,  in  asserting  that  there  is  a  false  assump- 
tion of  catholicity  in  such  exclusions  as  it  condemns,  forgets 
that  the  only  discipline  in  the  Church  Universal  is  that  now 
exercised  by  the  particular  Churches.  A  pure  particular 
Church  is  not  a  sect,  but  is  of  the  Church  Catholic.  The  par- 
ticular Church  must  meet  its  own  responsibility  —  it  claims  no 
more  than  the  right  to  exclude  from  its  own  com-  j,^,^^^  ^,,j  ^^. 
munion  —  and  does  not  pretend  to  force  any  other  tontofexcommn- 
particular  Church  to  respect  its  discipline,  it  we 
exclude  a  man  for  what  we  believe  to  be  heresy,  that  does  not 
prevent  his  union  with  another  part  of  the  Church  which 
regards  his  view  as  orthodox.  The  worship  of  what  we  be- 
lieve to  be  a  wafer,  may  exclude  a  man  from  our  Communion, 
but  it  will  prepare  for  him  a  welcome  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  believes  that  wafer  to  be  incarnate  God.  There  such  a 
man  belongs.  His  exclusion  does  not  deny  that  a  man  may 
believe  in  Transubstantiation  and  yet  be  saved.  ^N^or  let  it  be 
foro-otten  that  no  excommunication  is  valid  unless  it  be  author- 
ized  of  God.  All  the  fulminations  of  all  the  particular  Churches 
on  earth  combined  cannot  drive  out  of  God's  kingdom  the 
man  he  is  pleased  to  keep  in  it.  If  the  excommunication  be 
righteous,  no  man  dare  object  to  it ;  if  it  be  unrighteous,  the 
man  has  not  been  excluded  by  it  from  the  Church  militant. 
'No  man  can  be  really  kept  or  forced  out  of  the  Church  mili- 
tant except  by  God's  act  or  his  own. 


192  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

Let  us  now  test  the  principle  by  a  particular  case.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  one  which  in  the  w^hole  com- 
pass of  Lutheran  doctrine  has  been  most  objected  to  on  the 
ground  just  stated.  The  objector  to  specific  Creeds  asks, 
whether  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  is  a  part  of 
Christian  orthodoxy,  or  only  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy?  We 
reply,  that  it  is  a  part  of  both.  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  if  it  be 
really  orthodoxy,  is,  of  necessity.  Christian  orthodoxy,  for 
there  is  no  other.  The  Lutheran  doctrinal  system,  if  it  be 
orthodox,  is,  of  necessity,  Scriptural  and  Christian.  If  we 
admit  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  taught  by  our  Church 
is  taught  also  in  the  Xew  Testament,  the  error  to  which  it  is 
opposed  is,  of  course,  inconsistent  with  the  lN"ew  Testament, 
and,  therefore,  with  Christianity.  Either  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine on  the  Sacrament  is  Christian,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  be  not 
Christian,  then  it  is  not  orthodoxy  ;  if  it  be  Christian,  then 
the  opposite  of  it  is,  of  necessity,  not  Christian.  As  we  under- 
stand the  questioner  to  reason  with  us  on  our  own  ground, 
and  to  grant  our  supposition,  for  argument's  sake,  we  regard 
his  question  as  really  answering  itself,  as  we  cannot  suppose 
that  he  maintains,  that  two  conflicting  systems  can  both  be 
sound,  two  irreconcilable  statements  both  truthful,  two  doc- 
trines, destructive  of  each  other,  both  orthodox. 

But,  inasmuch  as  this  exact  construction  of  the  drift  of, the 
question  makes  the  answer  to  it  so  obvious,  we  are  inclined  to 
think  that  its  point  is  somewhat  different,  and  that  what  is 
meant,  is,  Whether  it  be  necessary  to  a  man's  being  a  Christian 
in  general,  or  only  to  his  being  a  Lutheran  Christian,  that  he 
should  be  sound  in  this  doctrine  ?     To  this  we  reply  that,  to 

Whom  ma-  ^^^^  pcrfcct  ideal  of  a  Christian  in  general,  it  is 
M-e  recognize  as  esscutlal  that  hc  should  cmbracc  the  whole  faith 
Christians?  ^^  ^^^  gospcl,  aud  that  defective  or  false  faith  in 
regard  to  the  sacraments,  so  far  mars,  as  defective  faith  on  any 
point  will,  the  perfect  ideal.  All  other  things  being  equals  the 
Christian,  who  does  not  hold  the  Xew  Testament  doctrine  of 
the  Sacrament,  is  by  so  much,  short  of  the  perfect  ideal 
reached,  on  this  point,  by  the  man  who  does  hold  that  doc- 
trine ;  or,  supposing,  as  we  do  suppose,  that  this  doctrine  is 


CHRISTIANS  IN  TEE    CHURCH   OF  ROME.       193 

purely  held  by  our  Church,  by  so  much  does  the  non-Lutheran 
Christian  fall  short  of  the  full  life  of  faith  of  the  Lutheran 
Christian.  It  is  in  the  "unity  of  the  faith"  that  we  are  to 
"  come  to  the  fulness  of  the  stature  of  perfect  men  in  Christ 
Jesus."  But  the  question  still  seems  so  easy  of  solution,  that 
we  apprehend  another  point  may  be :  Can  a  man  be  a  Chris- 
tian, who  does  not  receive  what,  on  our  supposition,  as  a 
Lutheran,  is  the  I^ew  Testament  orthodoxy  in  regard  to  the 
Sacrament  ?  If  this  be  the  point,  we  unhesitatingly  reply, 
that  a  man  may  here  be  in  unconscious  error,  and  be  a  Chris- 
tian. A  man,  who  sees  that  the  'New  Testament  teaches  a 
doctrine,  and  yet  rejects  it,  is  not  a  Christian.  The  man  who 
never  has  thoroughly  examined  the  IN'ew  Testament  evidence 
on  the  subject,  and  this  is  the  position  of  many,  is  so  far  lack- 
ing in  honesty.  The  man  who  grossly  misrepresents  the  doc- 
trine, and  coarsely  vilifies  it,  is  guilty  of  a  great  crime.  Here 
the  decision  involves  no  difficulty,  and  yet  it  is  one  of  the 
hardest  practical  questions  to  determine,  w^hat  amount  of  incon- 
sistency with  the  demands  of  Christianity  is  necessary  to  prove 
a  man  to  be  no  Christian  ;  and  this  difficult  question  pertains 
not  alone  to  the  faith  of  the  Christian,  but  to  his  life;  it  is 
both  doctrinal  and  practical.  Certainly,  there  are  many  points 
of  a  self-consistent  JSTew  Testament  morality,  in  which  men 
come  fearfully  short,  whom  we  yet  think  we  are  bound  to  con- 
sider as  Christians — weak,  inconsistent,  and  in  great  peril,  yet 
still  Christians.  It  is  hazardous,  indeed,  to  provide  for  any 
degree  of  aberration  in  Christian  morals  or  in  Christian  faith. 
Our  Church  is  a  liberal  Church,  in  the  true  sense  ;  she  is  liberal 
with  what  belongs  to  her,  but  not  liberal  in  giving  away  her 
Master's  goods,  contrary  to  His  order.  The  truth,  in  its 
minutest  part,  she  does  not  trifle  with.  For  herself  and  her 
children,  she  must  hold  it  with  uncompromising  fidelity.  But 
she  heartily  believes,  that,  even  where  some  portion  of  the 
truth  is  lost  or  obscured,  God  may,  through  what  is  left,  per- 
petuate a  Christian  life.  She  believes  that  God  has  Ilis  own 
blessed  ones,  kept  through  His  almighty  grace,  through  all 
Christendom.  She  believes,  that,  in  the  Romish  Church,  Pas- 
cal and  Fenelon,  and  many  of  the  obscure  and  unknown,  were 

13 


194  CONSERVATIVE   REFOllMATIOK. 

true  followers  of  Jesus  ;  she  believes  that  Christ  may  preserve 
many  of  His  own  there  now.  Even  in  considering  the  Pope 
as  in  his  claims  and  assumptions  an  Antichrist,  she  does 
not  exclude  him  as  a  person  from  the  possibility  of  salvation  ; 
but  she  dares  not  let  go  her  truthful  testimony  against  Romish 
^.  . ..  errors.     She  dare  not  let  her  children  think  that  it 

Christians   in 

the  Church  of     jg  ^  matter  of  indifference,  whether  they  hold  to 
justification  by  faith,  or  justification   by  works, 
or,  as  regards  the  Sacrament,  hold  to  the  opus  operatum^  Tran- 
substantiation,  and  the  Mass,  or  to  the  pure  doctrine  she  con- 
fesses.    And  here  we  throw  back  upon  such  an  objector  his 
own  question.     He  acknowledges  that  Luther  was  a  Christian 
before  he  left  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  that  God  has  His  own 
saints,  even  under  the  corrupt  system  of  that  Church.     Are 
his  own  views,  then,  against  the  oinis  operatum,  against  Tran- 
substantiation  and  the  Mass,  a  part  of  Christian  orthodoxy,  or 
only  of  Protestant  orthodoxy  ?  Shall  our  Protestant  creeds  exclude 
a  man  from  our  Protestant  Churches  and  Pulpits,  because  he 
is  a  Bomanist^  w^ho,  we  yet  acknowledge,  may  be  God's  child, 
and  an  heir  of  heaven  ?     As  to  the  great  Communions,  whose 
distinctive  life  originated  in  the  Era  of  the  Reformation,  the 
case  is  no  less  clear.     We  need  hardly  say  how  heartily  we 
acknowledge,  that,  in  the  Evangelical  Protestant  Churches,  in 
their  ministry  and  people,  there  are  noble  exemplifications  of 
Christian  grace.     Nevertheless,  we  do  not  believe  that  there  is 
a  Christian  living,  who  would  not  be  more  perfect  as  a  Chris- 
tian, in  a  pure  Xew  Testament  faith  in  regard  to  the  Sacra- 
ments, than  he  can  be  in  human  error  regarding  them,  and  we 
believe  that  pure  Kew  Testament  faith  to  be  the  faith  which 
is   confessed  by  our   Church.     At  the  same  time,  we  freely 
acknowledge,  that,    as   Channing,   though  a  Unitarian,   was 
Christian,  in     ^^0^^  lovcly  uiorally  than  many  a  Trinitarian,  so, 
the  Protestant     much  morc,  may  some  particular  Christians,  who 
are  in  error  on  the  matter  of  the  Sacraments,  far 
surpass  in  Christian  grace  some  individuals,  who  belong  to  a 
Church,  whose  sacramental  faith  is  pure.     Some  men  are  on 
the  level  of  their  systems,  some  rise  above  them,  some  fall  below 
them. 


COURSE    OF  ERROR   IN   TUE    CHURCH.  195 

A  human  body  may  not  only  live,  but  be  healthy,  in  which 
one  lobe  of  the  lungs  is  gone ;  another  may  be  sickly  and  die, 
in  which  the  lungs  are  perfect.     ^Nevertheless,  the  complete 
lungs  are  an  essential  part  of  a  perfect  human  body.     We  still 
truly  call  a  man  a  man,  though  he  may  have  lost  arms  and 
legs ;  we  still  call  a  hand  a  hand,  though  it  may  have  lost  a 
finger,  or  be  distorted.     While,  therefore,  we  freely  call  systems 
and  men  Christian,  though  they  lack  a  sound  sacramental  doc- 
trine, we  none  the  less  consider  that  doctrine  essential  to  a 
complete  Christian  system,  and  to  the  perfect  faith  of  a  Chris- 
tian man.     The  man  who  has  lost  an  arm,  w^e  love  none  the 
less.     If  he  has  lost  it  by  carelessness,  we  pity  his  misfortune, 
yet  we  do  not  hold  him  free  from  censure.     But,  w^hen  he  in- 
sists, that,  to  have  two  arms,  is  a  blemish,  and  proposes  to  cut 
off  one  of  ours,  then  we  resist  him.     Somewhere  on  earth,  if  the 
gates  of  hell  have  not  prevailed  against  the  Church,  there  is  a 
Communion  whose  fellowship  involves  no  departure  from   a 
solitary  article  of  Christian  faith  —  and  no  man  should  be  will- 
ing to  be  united  with  any  other  Communion.     The  man  who 
is  sure  there  is  no  such  Communion  is  bound  to  put  forth  the 
eftbrt  to  orio-inate  it.     He  who  knows  of  no  Creed  which  is 
true  to  the  Rule  of  Faith,  in  all  its  articles,  should  at  once  pre- 
pare one  that  is.     Every  Christian  is  bound  either  to  find  a 
Church  on  Earth,  pure  in  its  whole  faith,  or  to  make  one.     On 
the  other  hand,  he  who  says  that  the  Church  is  wrong,  con- 
fesses in  that  very  assertion,  that  if  the  Church  be  right,  he  is 
an  errorist ;  and  that  in  asking  to  share  her  communion  while 
he  yet  denies  her  doctrine,  he  asks  her  to  adopt  the  principle 
that  error  is  to  be  admitted  to  her  bosom,  for  as  an  errorist 
and  only  as  an  errorist  can  she  admit  him. 

But  the  practical  result  of  this  principle  is  one  on  which 
there  is  no  need  of  speculating;  it  works  in  one  course uf Error 
unvarying  way.  When  error  is  admitted  into  the  >"  ^'"^  chmch. 
Church,  it  will  be  found  that  the  stages  of  its  progress  are 
always  three.  It  begins  by  asking  toleration.  Its  friends  say 
to  the  majority :  You  need  not  be  afraid  of  us ;  we  are  few,  and 
weak ;  only  let  us  alone ;  we  shall  not  disturb  the  faith  of 
others.     The  Church  has  her  standards  of  doctrine  ;  of  course 


196  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

we  shall  never  interfere  with  them  ;  we  only  ask  for  ourselves 
to  be  spared  interference  with  our  private  opinions.  Indulged 
in  this  for  a  time,  error  goes  on  to  assert  equal  rights.  Truth 
and  error  are  two  balancing  forces.  The  Church  shall  do 
nothino^  which  looks  like  decidins;  between  them  ;  that  would 
be  partiality.  It  is  bigotry  to  assert  any  superior  right  for 
the  truth.  We  are  to  agree  to  differ,  and  any  favoring  of 
tlie  truth,  because  it  is  truth,  is  partisanship.  "What  the 
friends  of  truth  and  error  hold  in  common  is  fundamental. 
Anything  on  which  they  differ  is  ipso  facto  non-essential. 
Anybody  who  makes  account  of  such  a  thing  is  a  disturber  of 
the  peace  of  the  church.  Truth  and  error  are  two  co-ordinate 
powers,  and  the  great  secret  of  church-statesmanship  is  to  pre- 
serve the  balance  between  them.  From  this  point  error  soon 
goes  on  to  its  natural  end,  which  is  to  assert  snpremaci/.  Truth 
started  with  tolerating;  it  comes  to  be  merely  tolerated,  and 
that  only  for  a  time.  Error  claims  a  preference  for  its  judg- 
ments on  all  disputed  points.  It  puts  men  into  positions,  not  as 
at  first  in  spite  of  their  departure  from  the  Church's  faith,  but 
in  consequence  of  it.  Their  recommendation  is  that  they  re- 
pudiate that  faith,  and  position  is  given  them  to  teach  others 
to  repudiate  it,  and  to  make  them  skilful  in  combating  it. 

So  necessary,  so  irresistible  are  these  facts,  and  the  principles 
they  throw  into  light,  that  we  find  in  history  the  name  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  from  the  hour  of  its  first  dis- 
tinctive use,  linked  for  centuries  with  one  unvarying  feature 
everywhere.  Divided  among  nationalities,  speaking  diverse 
tongues,  developing  different  internal  tendencies  within  certain 
^..,,..     ^   ,     limits,  and  without  absolute  identity  as  to  the 

lulelity   of    the  '  ^  "^ 

Lniiicran  Church  univcrsal  rccognition  of  certain  books  as  standards 
to  her  Confession.  ^^  doctriuc,  wc  fiud  ouc  uuchanging  element  ;  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  accepted  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  scriptural  throughout.  Such  a  phenomenon  as  an 
Evangelical  Lutheran  claiming  the  right  of  assailing  a  doctrine 
tausrht  in  the  Aus-sburs^  Confession  was  unknown. 

When  Spener,  Francke,  and  the  original  Pietistic  school 
sought  to  develop  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Church,  they  did  it 
by  enforcing  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  in  their  living  power 


CHARACTER    OF  RATIONALISM.  197 

They  accomplished  their  work  by  holding  more  firmly  and 
exhibiting  more  completely  in  all  their  aspects  the  doctrines  of 
the  Reformation,  confessed  at  Augsburg.    The  position  of  them 
all  was  that  the  doctrines  of  our  Church  are  the  doctrines  of 
God's  Word,  that  no  changes  were  needed,  or  could  be  allowed 
in  them  ;  that  in  doctrine  her  Reformation  was  complete,  and 
that  her  sole  need  was  by  sound  discipline  to  maintain,  and  by 
holy  activity  to  exhibit,  practically,  her  pure  faith.     These  men 
of  God  and  the  great  theologians  they  influenced,  and  the  noble 
missionaries  they  sent  forth,  held  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
firmly.      They  wrought   those  great  works,   the  praises    of 
which  are  in  all  Christendom,  through  these  very  doctrines. 
They  did   not  mince  them,  nor  draw  subtle  distinctions  by 
which  to  evade  or  practically  ignore  them,  but,  alike  upon  the 
most  severely  controverted,  as  upon  the  more  generally  recog- 
nized, doctrines  of  our  Church,  they  were  thoroughly  Lutheran. 
They  held  the  Sacramental  doctrines  of  our  Church  tenaciously, 
and  defended  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  they  did  all  her  other  doctrines.     It 
was  Semler  and  Bahrdt,  Gabler,  Wegscheider  and  Bretschnei- 
der,  and  men  of  their  class,  who  first  invented,  or  acted  on,  the 
theory  that  men  could  be  Lutherans,  and  assail  the  doctrinea 
of  the  Church.     Better  men  than  those  whose  names  we  have 
mentioned  were  influenced  and  perverted  in  difterent  degrees 
by  the  rationalistic  spirit  of  the  time.     They  did  not  assail  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church,  but  they  either  passed  them  hy  in 
silence,  or  defended  them  w^ith  a  reservedness  practically  equiv- 
alent to  a  betrayal.     It  looked  as  if  the  edifice  of  our  fathers' 
faith  might  be   utterly  overthrown.     As  Deism  was  eating 
away  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  England 
and  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland ;  as  Socinianism  was 
laying  waste  the  Independent  Churches  of  the  same  lands,  as  at 
a  later  period  it  roiled  over  N'ew  England ;  as  Atheism  swept 
awa}^  Romanism  in  France;  so   did    Rationalism 
rear  itself  in  the  Lutheran  Church.     Established  Rationalism. 
as  our  Church  was  on  God's  Word,  what  could 
move  her  but  to  take  from  her  that  Word,  or  to  lead  her  to 
some  new  and  false  mode  of  interpreting  it?     This  was  the 


198  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

work  of  Rationalism  —  to  pretend  to  hold  the  Word,  but  to 
corrupt  its  sense,  so  that  the  Confession  and  the  Word  should 
no  longer  seem  to  correspond.  The  mischief  seemed  to  be 
incurable  ;  but  God  did  not  forsake  his  own  work.  The  evil 
})rought  its  own  cure.  The  mischief  wrought  until  it  was 
found  that  the  idea  of  men  calling  themselves  by  the  name  of 
a  Church,  and  yet  claiming  the  right  to  assail  its  doctrines, 
was  the  idea  of  Infidelity  in  the  bud  —  it  was  Belial  allowed 
to  take  shelter  under  the  hem  of  the  garment  of  Christ.  Any 
man  who  will  read  thoughtfully  the  history  of  Rationalism  in 
Europe,  and  of  the  Unionism  which  is  now  too  often  its 
stronghold,  will  not  wonder  at  the  earnestness  of  true  Luther- 
anism  in  Germany,  and  of  Synods  which  are  in  affinity  with  it, 
in  maintaining  a  pure  Confession.  He  will  have  no  difficulty 
in  comprehending  their  indisposition  to  tolerate  indifferentism, 
rationalism,  and  heresy,  under  the  pretence  of  union.  They 
cannot  call  bitter  sweet,  while  their  lips  are  yet  wet  with  the 
wormwood  which  was  forced  upon  them. 

The  history  of  Rationalism  in  our  Church  will  show  certain 
phases,  of  which  we  will  offer  a  hint : 

I.  In  the  first  place,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  was  con- 
ceded to  be  true,  but  its  relative  importance  was  detracted 

History  of  Ra-  ^om.     It  was  argucd  that  doctrinal  theories  should 
tinnaiisra.  \yQ  throwu  iuto  tlic  backgrouud,  and  that  directly 

practical  and  experimental  truths,  separated  from  their  true 
connections  in  the  profounder  doctrines,  should  be  exclusively 
urged.     (Pseudo-Pietism  and  Fanaticism.) 

II.  From  an  impaired  conviction  of  the  value  of  these  con- 
ceded doctrines,  grew  a  disposition  to  ignore  the  doctrines 
which  divided  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Communions.  The 
Divine  Word  was  not  to  be  pressed  in  cases  in  which  there  was  a 
reluctance  to  accept  its  teachings.  From  this  arose  Unionistic 
efforts  on  the  basis  of  a  general  Protestant  orthodoxy,  and  an 
assimilation  on  the  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the  Re- 
formed basis,  tendency,  and  doctrine. 

III.  From  the  disposition  to  undervalue  and  ignore  these 
doctrines,  arose  the  feeling  that  if  they  could  be  entirely  set 
aside,  there  would  be  a  great  gain  to  the  cause  of  unity.    Why 


HISTORY   OF  RATIONALISM.  199 

agree  to  differ,  when,  by  a  free  criticism,  the  very  causes  of 
differences  could  be  thrown  out  of  the  way?  These  distinctive 
doctrines  originated  in  too  strict  a  conception  of  the  inspira- 
tion and  weight  of  the  Bible  language.  Why  not  liberalize 
its  interpretation?  Thus  arose  the  earlier  and  more  moderate 
rationalism  of  Semler  and  of  his  School. 

lY.  Then  came  the  beginning  of  the  end.  Men,  still  in  the 
outward  communion  of  the  Church,  claimed  the  right  to  sub- 
mit all  its  doctrines  to  their  critical  processes.  Refined  and 
Vulgar  Rationalism,  mainly  distinguished  by  their  degrees  of 
candor,  divided  the  ministry,  carried  away  the  Reformed 
Church,  and,  to  a  large  extent,  even  the  Romish,  with  our  own, 
broke  up  the  liturgical,  catechetical,  and  hymnological  life,  and 
destroyed  the  souls  of  the  people.  Unblushing  infidelity  took 
on  it  the  livery  of  the  Church.  Men  had  rejected  the  Faith  of 
the  Rule,  and  were  still  good  Lutherans.  Why  not  reject  the 
Rule  of  Faith,  and  be  good  Lutherans  ?  The  Faith  of  those 
men  of  the  olden  time,  men  who  were,  by  more  than  two  cen- 
turies, wiser  than  their  fathers,  had  proved  to  be  mere  human 
speculation.  "Why  might  not  the  Rule  be?  They  soon  settled 
that  question,  and  the  Bible  was  flung  after  the  Confession,  and 
men  were  allowed  to  be  anything  they  pleased  to  be,  and  to  bear 
any  name  they  chose.  The  less  Lutheran  they  were  in  the  old 
sense  of  the  word,  the  more  were  they  Lutherans  in  the  new 
sense.  They  not  only  insisted  on  being  called  Lutherans,  but 
insisted  they  were  the  only  genuine  Lutherans.  Had  not  Luther 
disenthralled  the  human  mind?  Was  not  the  Reformation 
simply  an  assertion  of  the  powers  of  human  reason,  and  of  the 
right  of  private  judgment?  Was  it  not  an  error  of  Luther's 
dark  day,  that,  when  he  overthrew  the  fear  of  the  Pope,  he  left 
the  fear  of  God  —  which  simply  substitutes  an  impalpable 
Papacy  for  a  visible  one  ?  Would  not  Luther,  if  he  had  only 
been  so  happy  as  to  have  lived  to  road  their  writings,  certainly 
have  been  brought  over  to  the  fullest  liberty  ?  Who  could  doubt 
it  ?  So  out  of  the  whole  work  of  the  Reformer,  the  onl}^  posi- 
tive result  which  they  regarded  him  as  having  reached  was 
embraced  in  the  well-known  lines,  which  there  is,  indeed,  no 
evidence  that  he  wrote,  but  which  are  so  far  in  advance  of 


200  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

everything  in  his  indubitably  genuine  works,  as  to  be,  in  their 
eyes,  supra- canonical,  to  wit: 

Wer  niclit  liebt  Wein,  Weib  und  Gesang, 
Der  bleibt  ein  Narr  sein  Leben  lang. 

This  is  all  they  have  left  as  fundamental  in  the  Reformer's 
creed.  Such  is  the  Genesis,  and  such  the  Revelation  of  the 
European  History  of  the  sort  of  Lutheranism  which  claims  the 
right  to  mutilate  and  assail  the  faith  of  the  Church.  Ought 
we  not  to  tremble  at  it  and  take  heed  how  we  make  a  single 
step  toward  its  terrible  fallacy  and  its  fearful  results? 

In  the  great  mercy  of  God  a  reaction  and  revival  in  the  true 
sense  is  taking  place.    It  ffoes  on  in  the  Old  World. 

I'.estoration  of  ®   -^  ^  ,      .  . 

the  Church  It  goes  ou  lu  the  Kew.  The  work  is  going  on,  and 
^*'*^'  will  go  on,  until  the  old  ways  have  been  found  — 

till  the  old  banner  again  floats  on  every  breeze,  and  the  old 
faith,  believed,  felt,  and  lived,  shall  restore  the  Church  to  her 
primal  glory  and  holy  strength.  God  speed  the  day !  For  our 
Church's  name,  her  history,  her  sorrows,  and  her  triumphs, 
her  glory  in  what  has  been,  her  power  for  the  good  yet  to  be, 
all  are  bound  up  with  the  principle  that  purity  in  the  faith 
is  first  of  all,  such  a  first,  that  without  it  there  can  be  no  true 
second. 


VI. 

THE  CONFESSIONS  OF  THE  CONSERVATIVE 
REFORMATION. 

THE  PRIMARY  CONFESSION.  THE  CONFESSION  OP 
AUGSBURG.* 


IT  is  with  a  solemn  and  holy  delight  we  have  learned  to 
traverse  the  venerable  edifice,  which  the  hands  of  our  fathers 
erected  in  the  sixteenth  century.  There  is  none  of  the  glitter 
which  catches  and  fascinates  the  childish  eye,  but  spi,it  of  the 
all  possesses  that  solid  grandeur  which  fills  the  Reformation. 
soul.     Every  part  harmonizes  with  the  whole,  and  conspires  in 

*  The  Bibliography  we  propose  to  give,  in  the  notes  to  this  dissertation,  is 
not  a  general  one,  but  is  confined  to  the  Avorks  which  are  in  the  hands  of  the 
writer,  and,  with  a  few  exceptions,  in  his  library.  It  will  be  found,  however, 
to  embrace  all  that  are  of  the  highest  importance,  so  far  as  the  diligence  of  the 
collector,  stretching  itself  over  years,  has  been  able  to  bring  them  together.  We 
give  in  this  note  only  the  Bibliography  of  the  Bibliography  of  the  Confession. 

I.  Notices  in  works  of  a  geneml  character. 

BuDDEi  Isagoge  (1730)  426,  437.— Noesselt,  J.  A. :  Anweisung  (3d  ed.  1818) 
ii.  272.— Planck,  G.  J. :  Einleitung  (1795)  ii.  592.  — Danz  :  Encyclopoedie  (1832) 
415._Walch:  Bibliotheca  Theologioa  (1757)  i.  327-362,  iv.  1099.— Niemeyer: 
Prediger  Bibliothek  (1784)  iii.  63-69. —Noesselt:  Kenntniss  Bucher  (1790) 
g  507,  508.— Fuhrmann:  Handbuch  der  Theolog.  Literat.  (1819)  ii.  a.  500,  507.— 
Ersch:  Literatur  der  Theologie.  (1822)  119. —  Danz  :  Universal  Worterbuch. 
(1843)  96,  186,  921.  Supplem.  22.— Winer:  Handbuch.  (3d  ed.  1838)  i.  323,572. 
ii.  316.    Supplem.    (1842)   53. — Kaysers  :    Index   Librorum,  Confession,   etc. 

II.  Special  notices  of  its  Literature. 

Pfaff,  C.  M,:  Introd.  in  Histor.  Theolog.  Liter.  Tubing.  1726,  iii.  385-416.— 
Jo.   A.LB.  Fabricius:  Centifolium  Lutheranum  (Hamb.  1728-30.  ii.  8)  i.  104-144, 

201 


202  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

the  proof  that  their  work  was  not  to  pull  down,  hut  to  erect. 
The  spirit  of  the  Reformation  was  no  destroying  angel,  who 
sat  and  scowled  with  a  malignant  joy  over  the  desolation  which 
spread  around.  It  was  overshadowed  by  the  wings  of  that 
Spirit  who  brooded  indeed  on  the  waste  of  waters  and  the 
wilderness  of  chaos,  but  only  that  he  might  unfold  the  germs 
of  life  that  lay  hidden  there,  and  bring  forth  light  and  order 
from  the  darkness  of  the  yet  formless  and  void  creation.  It 
is  vastly  more  important,  then,  to  know  what  the  Keformation 
retained  than  what  it  overthrew  ;  for  the  overthrow  of  error, 
thouo-h  often  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  establishment 
of  trath,  is  not  truth  itself;  it  may  clear  the  foundation,  sim- 
ply to  substitute  one  error  for  another,  perhaps  a  greater  for  a 
less.  Profoundly  important,  indeed,  is  the  history  of  that 
which  the  Reformation  accomplished  against  the  errors  of 
Romanism,  yet  it  is  as  nothing  to  the  history  of  that  which  it 
accomplished  for  itself.     The  overthrow  of  Romanism  was  not 

ii.  583-606.  — BibliothecaRETMANNiANA  (1731)  p.  403.  — Walchii,  J.  G. ;  Intro- 
ductio  in  Libr.  Symbol.  Jena,  1732.  196-257.  — Walchii,  J.  G.  :  Religions- 
streitigkeiten  der  Evang.  Luth.  Kirclie.  Jena,  2d  ed.  1733-1739.  i.  35.  iv.  4. — 
Walcii,  J.  G.  :  Chr.  Concordienb.  Jena.  1750.  p.  21.  —  Baumgarten,  S.  J.:  Er- 
lauterungen  der  Symb  Schriften.  Halle,  1761.  p.  54-60.  — Walchii,  C.  G.  F.: 
Breviar.  Theolog.  Symb.  Eccl.  Luth.  Gottingen,  1765.  p.  69-75.  —  Baumgarten, 
S.  J.  :  Geschichte  der  Religions-partheyen.  Halle,  1866.  p.  1150-1153.  —J.  W. 
Feuerlen:  Bibliotheca  Symbolica— edid.  J.  Barth.  Rieuerer  (Norimb.  1768.) 
8.  p  70  seq.  —  Koecher:  Bibliotheca  theologiac  symbolicae  et  catecheticce  item- 
que  liturgica.  Guelferb.  1751.  114-137.— H.  W.  Rotermund:  Geschichte,  etc., 
(1829)  p.  192-203. — Semleri:  Apparatus  ad  Libr.  Symbol.  Eccl.  Luth.  Halae 
Mag.  1775.  pp.  39,  42. — Beck,  C.  D.  :  Commentar.  histor.  decret.  relig.  chr.  et 
formulae  Lutheriae.  Leipz.,  1801.  p.  148,  794.  —  Tittmann,  J.  A.  H. ;  Instit. 
Symbolic,  ad  Sentent.  Eccles.  Evang.  Lipsiae,  1811.  p.  92.  —  Ukert  :  Luther's 
Leben.  Gotha,  1817.  i.  227-293  —  Fuhrmann:  Handworterbuch  der  Christ. 
Relig.  u.  Kirchengesch.  Halle,  1826.  i.  537.  — Yelin:  Versuch  einer  histor- 
liter.  Darst.  der  Symbol.  Schriften.  NUrnberg,  1829  p.  67.  —  Pfaff,  K.  :  Ge- 
schichte des  Rcichst.  zu  Augsburg.  Stuttg.,  1830.  p.v.-x.  —  Bretsciineider:  Sys- 
temat.  Entwickelung.  Leipz.,  (1804).  4th  ed.  1841  81-86.  —  C.  A.  Hase  :  Libr. 
Symb.  Lips.,  1827  (1845)  proleg.  iii.— J.  T.  L.  Danz:  Die  Augsb.  Confess.,  etc. 
(1829)  1-4.  — Kollner:  Symb.  der  Luther.  Kirche.  Hamburg,  1837.  p.  150- 
152.  —  GuEREKE,  n.  E.  F.:  Symbolik  (1839),  3d  Aufl.  Leipz.,  1861.  104-110.— 
MUller,  J.  T. :  Symb.  BUcher.  Stuttg.,  1848.  xv.  xvii.  — Matthes,  K.  :  Compar. 
Symbolik.  Leipz.,  1854.  p.  76.  — Herzog:  Real  Encyclop.  Hamb.,  1864.  i. 
234.— Hofmann:  Rud.  Symbolik.  Leipz.,  1857.  p.  234  —Corpus  Reformato- 
KUM,  (1857).  vol.  xxvi.  Pars  Prior.  101-111.  201-204. 


SPIRIT   OF   THE  REFORMATION.  203 

its  primary  object ;  in  a  certain  sense  it  was  not  its  object  at 
all.     Its  object  was  to  establisb  truth,  no  matter  what  might 
rise  or  fall  in  the  effort.     Had  the  Reformation  assumed  the 
form  which  some  who  have  since  borne  the  name  of  Protest- 
ants would  have  given  it,  it  would  not  even  have  been  a  splen- 
did failure  ;  the  movement  which  has  shaken  and  regenerated 
a  world  would  liave  ended  in  few  miserable  squabbles,  a  few 
autos  da  fe ;  and  the  record  of  a  history,  which  daily  makes 
the  hearts  of  thousands  burn  within  them,  would  have  been 
exchano-ed  for  some  such  brief  notice  as  this  :  that  an  irascible 
monk,  named  Luder,  or  Luther,  and  a  few  insane  coadjutors, 
having  foolishly  attempted  to  overthrow  the  holy  Roman  See, 
and/ remaining  obstinate  in   their  pernicious   and   detestable 
heresies,  were  burned  alive,  tothe  glory  of  God  and  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  to  the  inexpressible  satisfaction  of  all  the  faithful. 
The  mightiest  weapon  which  the  Reformation  employed  against 
Rome  was,  not  Rome's  errors,  but  Rome's  truths.     It  professed 
to  make  no  discoveries,  to  find  no  unheard-of  interpretations  ; 
but  taking  the  Scriptures  in  that  very  sense  to  which  the 
greatest  of  her  writers  had  assented,  uncovering  the  law  and 
the  gospel  of  God  which  she  retained,  applying  them  as  her 
most  distinguished  and  most  honored  teachers  had  applied 
them,  though  she  had  made  them  of  none  effect  by  her  tradi- 
tions, the  Reformation  took  into  its  heart  the  life-stream  of  six- 
teen centuries,  and  came  forth  in  the  stature  and  strength  of  a 
Christianity,  grown  from  the  infancy  of  primitive  ages,  to  the 
ripened  manhood  of  that  maturer  period.     There  was  no  fear 
of  truth,  simply  because  Rome  held  it,  and  no  disposition  to 
embrace  error,  because  it  might  be  employed  with  advantage 
to  Rome's  injury.     While  it  established  broadly  and  deeply 
the  right  of  private  judgment,  it  did  not  make  that  abuse  of 
it  which  has  since  been  so  common.     From  the  position,  that 
the  essential  truths  of  the  word  of  God  are  clear  to  any  Chris- 
tian mind  that  examines  them  properly,  it  did  not  leap  to  the 
conclusion,  that  a  thousand  generations  or  a  thousand  exam- 
iners were  as  likely,  or  more  likely,  to  be  wrong  than  one. 
They  allowed  no  authority  save  to  the  word  of  God,  but  they 
listened  respectfully  to  the  witness  of  believers  of  all  time. 


204  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

The  tone  which  is  imparted  to  the  mind  and  heart,  by  the 
theology  of  the  Eeformation,  is  just  what  we  now  most  need. 
But  where  are  we  to  commence,  it  may  be  asked,  in  the  infinite 
Importance  of  Variety  of  worlvS  that  have  been  written  about  the 
the  Confessions.     Kcformation  and  its  theology  ?     ''Art  is  long  and 
life  is  fleeting."     And  how  is  the  clergyman  to  find  the  books, 
or  buy  them  when  found,  or  read  them  when  bought,  destitute, 
as  he  is  too  wont  to  be,  alike  of  money  and  time  ?     We  reply, 
that  an  immense  treasure  lies  in  a  narrow  compass,  and  within 
the  reach  of  every  minister  in  our  land.     By  a  careful  study 
of  the  symbolical  books  of  our  Church,  commencing  with  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apology,  a  more  thorough  under- 
standing of  the  history,  difiiculties,  true  genius,  and  triumphs 
of  the  Reformation  will  be  attained,  than  by  reading  every- 
thing that  can  be  got,  or  that  has  ever  been  written  about  that 
memorable  movement.     It  is,  indeed,  too  much  the  fashion 
now  to  read  about  things,  to  the  neglect  of  the  great  original 
sources  themselves.     In  general  literature  much  is  written  and 
read  about  Homer  and  Shakspeare,  until  these  great  poets 
attract  less  attention  than  their  critics.     In  theology  it  is  the 
prevailing  practice  to  have  students  read  introductions  to  the 
Bible,  and  essays  on  various  features  of  it,  to  such  a  degree  that 
the  Bible  itself,  except  in  an  indirect  form,  is  hardly  studied  at 
all,  and  the  student,  though  often  introduced  to  it,  never  fairly 
makes  its  acquaintance.     All  these  illustrative  works,  if  well 
executed,  have  their  value ;  but  that  value  presupposes  such  a 
general  acquaintance  with  the  books  to  which  they  serve  as  a 
guide,  as  is  formed  by  every  man  for  himself  who  carefully 
examines  them.      The   greatest  value  of  every  work  of  the 
human  mind,  after  all,  generally  lies  in  that  which  needs  no 
guide,  no  critic,  no  commentator.     Their  labors  may  display 
more  clearly,  and  thus  enhance,  this  value,  and  are  not  to  be 
despised ;  but  their  subject  is  greater  than  themselves,  and 
they  are  useful  only  when  they  lead  to  an  accurate  and  critical 
knowledge  of  that  with  which  a  general  acquaintance  has  been 
formed  by  personal  examination.      It  is  now  conceded,  for 
example,  that  in  the  order  of  nature  the  general  knowledge 
of  language  must  precede  an  accurate,  grammatical  acquaint- 


RELATIONS    TO    THE   REFORMATION.  205 

ance  with  it.  They  may  lo  formed  indeed  together,  part  pre- 
ceding part,  but  if  they  must  be  separated,  the  general  is  bet- 
ter than  the  scientific.  If,  in  a  library,  there  were  two  cases, 
one  containing  all  the  Latin  grammars  and  the  other  all  the 
Latin  classics,  and  one  boy  was  kept  six  years  to  the  classics 
and  another  six  years  to  the  grammars,  the  first  would  under- 
stand the  language  practically,  the  second  would  understand 
nothing,  not  even  the  grammar. 

And  this  principle  it  is  easy  to  apply  as  regards  its  bearings 
on  those  ffreat  masterly  treatises  which  form  our 

o  */  1       Tt    r  Relations       to 

Symbolical  books.      They  are  parts  of  the  Meforma-  the  Reformation. 
tion  itself^  not  merely  witnesses  in  the  loose  sense 
in  which  histories  are,  but  the  actual  results,  the  quintessence 
of  the  excited  theological  and  moral  elements  of  the  time.    In 
them  you  are  brought  into  immediate  contact  with  that  sub- 
lime convulsion  itself.     Its  strength  and  its  weakness,  its  fears 
and  its  hopes,  the  truths  it  exalted,  the  errors  and  abuses  it 
threw   down,   are   here   presented   in   the   most   solemn   and 
strongly  authenticated  form  in  which  they  gave  them  to  pos- 
terity.    They   are  nerves  running  from   the   central  seat  of 
thought  of  that  ancient,  glorious,  and  immortal  time,  to  us, 
who  form  the  extremities.     To  see  the  force  of  every  word, 
the  power  of  every  allusion,  requires  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  the  era  and  the  men,  in  forming  which  the  student  will 
be  led  delightfully  into  a  thorough  communion  and  profound 
sympathy  with  that  second  greatest  period  in,  human  history. 
The  child  of  our  Church  will  find  occasion  to  exult,  not  only 
in  those  brighter  parts  of  our  history  and  of  our  doctrines, 
whose  lustre  fills  every  eye,  but  even  in  those  particulars   on 
which  ignorance,  envy,  and  jealousy  have  based  their  power- 
less attacks;  — will  find,  when  he  reaches  a  thorough  under- 
standing of  them,  new  occasion  to  utter,  with  a  heart  swelling 
with  an  honorable  pride,  "  I,  too,  am  a  Lutheran."     We  are 
not  such  gross  idolaters,  nor  so  ignorant  of  the  declarations  of 
these  great  men  themselves,  as  to  imagine  that  they  left  nothing 
for  their  posterity  to  do.     Whether  their  posterity  has  done 
It,  and  done  it  well,  is,  however,  a  very  distinct  question.     To 
assume  that,  merely  because  we  follow  them  in  order  of  time, 


206  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

we  have  gone  farther  than  they  in  truth,  is  to  lay  the  founda- 
tion of  a  principle  more  ahsurd  and  pernicious  than  tlie  worst 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  is  as  foolish  as  to  say,  that 
the  child  of  to-day,  four  years  of  age,  is  a  greater  astronomer 
than  Newton,  hecause  he  lives  in  the  century  after  him. 

But  while  we  concede  that  we  may  and  ought  to  advance, 
we  wish  explicitly  to  say,  that  we  mean  by  advance,  irrogress 
in  the  same  direction.  We  are  aware  of  no  particular  in  which 
advance  demands,  or  is  even  compatible  with  a  desertion  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  our  fathers.  They  may  have 
Ni.ture  of  true  madc  mistakcs,  and  nothing  but  mistakes;  they 
progress.  ^^^^^  \\^^7Q  kuowu  uothiug,  and  we  may  know  every 

thing  ;  but  we  have  seen  no  evidence  that  such  is  the  case,  and 
until  it  be  brought  before  us,  we  must  beg  indulgence  for  our 
skepticism.  This  much  we  can  safely  assert,  that  those  who 
understand  best  the  theology  of  the  Reformation,  have  most 
confidence  in  it,  and  the  strongest  affection  for  it ;  to  them  it 
seems  still  to  stand  in  its  original  glory,  firm  as  the  eternal 
mountains.  That  which  strikes  them  painfully,  as  they  grow 
more  and  more  familiar  with  that  stout  heart,  whose  life- 
blood  is  warming  us,  is  that  we  have  not  advanced  as  we 
should ;  that  though  we  have  the  shoulders  of  these  giants  of 
a  former  world,  from  which,  alas !  a  flood  of  infidelity  and 
theological  frivolity  seems  to  separate  us,  on  which  to  stand, 
there  are  so  many  things  in  which  we  do  not  see  as  far  as  they. 
It  is  because  slothfulness  or  ignorance  prevents  us  from  occupy- 
ing that  position  to  which  they  would  lift  us,  because  taking 
a  poor  and  narrow  view  of  their  labors,  and  measuring  them 
by  some  contemptible  little  standard,  sometimes  one  set  up  by 
their  enemies,  and  yet  oftener  by  those  who  are  more  injurious 
than  their  enemies,  their  superficial  and  injudicious  professed 
friends,  we  permit  our  minds  to  be  prejudiced  against  them. 
A  simple  heart  is  of  more  value  than  mere  science  in  the 
apprehension  of  religious  truth  ;  and  never  has  there  been  wit- 
nessed such  a  union  of  gigantic  powers,  with  such  a  child-like 
spirit,  as  among  the  theologians  of  the  sixteenth  century.  In 
vain  do  we  increase  the  facilities  for  the  attainment  of  knowl- 
edo-e,  if  we  do  not  correspondingly  strengthen  the  temper  of 


SPIRIT    OF    OUR    TIME.  207 

nand  and  heart  essential  to  its  acquisition.  It  Ly  no  means, 
therefore,  follows,  that  even  minds  of  the  same  order  in  our 
own  day,  would  go  beyond  the  point  to  which  the  Reforma- 
tion was  carried  ;  because  circumstances  more  embarrassins; 
than  those  of  the  sixteenth  century  may  now  lie  around  the 
pathway  of  theological  truth.  Flattery  is  a  more  dangerous 
thing  than  bodily  peril ;  a  vain  and  superficial  tendency  will 
do  more  mischief  than  even  an  excess  of  the  supernatural  ele- 
ment, and  the  spirit  of  the  Romish  Church,  and  the  g^^j^^  ^^  ^^ 
prejudices  insensibly  imbibed  in  her  communion,  tinu-  a.ivf.rse  to 
are  not  more  pernicious  as  a  preparation  tor  the 
examination  of  divine  truth,  than  is  a  cold,  self-confident,  and 
rationalizing  mind.  If  we  do  not  contemptuously  reject  all 
aid  in  search  after  truth,  to  whom  can  we  go  with  more  confi- 
dence than  to  the  great  authors  of  the  Reformation?  We 
know  them  at  least  to  be  sincere  ;  no  hireling  scribblers,  writ- 
ing to  tickle  the  fancy  of  the  time ;  we  know  them  to  be  the 
thorough  masters  of  their  subjects,  conscious  that  every  word 
would  be  examined  and  every  argument  fiercely  assailed  by 
their  foes.  Every  doctrine  they  established  by  the  word  of 
God,  and  confirmed  by  the  witness  of  his  Church.  Every 
objection  which  is  now  urged,  w^as  then  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  truth.  Controversy  has  added  nothing  to  its  stores;  they 
knew  perfectly  those  superficial,  miscalled  reasons  wdiich  make 
men  now  so  confident  in  saying,  that  had  the  Reformers  only 
lived  in  our  time,  they  would  have  abandoned  much  to  which 
they  held.  They  knew  them,  but  they  lived  and  died  unchang- 
ing in  their  adherence  to  what  they  had  taught  as  truth.  It 
is  a  cheap  and  popular  way  of  getting  rid  of  anything  in  the 
theology  of  the  Reformation  which  is  not  palatable,  by  pre- 
tending that  it  is  a  remnant  of  Popery,  as  Rationalists  evade 
the  force  of  Scripture  declarations,  by  saying  they  are  accom- 
modations to  Jewish  prejudices.  Among  these  remnants  of 
Popery,  have  for  instance  been  enumerated  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity,  and  the  deity  of  Christ,  of  the  Atonement,  of 
eternal  punishment,  in  short,  of  every  thing  which  is  distinc- 
tive of  Evangelical  Christianity.  IS'o  position  could  be  more 
violent  in  regard  to  all  the  doctrines  of  our  Confession.    They 


208  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

not  only  can  be  demonstrated  from  Scripture,  but  can  be  shown 
to  have  been  fully  received  in  the  Church  before  Popery  had  a 
name  or  a  being.  It  would  be  far  more  natural  to  suppose, 
that  in  the  fierce  and  imbittered  strife  with  that  gigantic  sys- 
tem of  Error,  a  part  of  the  Protestant  party  would  be  driven  to 
deny  some  truths,  by  whose  abuse  the  Church  of  Pome  strove 
to  maintain  her  power.  The  insinuation  of  Romish  influence 
is  a  sword  with  a  double  edge,  and  is  almost  sure  to  wound 
those  who  handle  it;  it  is,  in  fact,  ordinarily  but  the  refuge 
of  a  sectarian  spirit,  which  tries  to  accomplish  by  exciting 
odium,  what  it  failed  to  do  by  argument. 

But  are  those  Confessions,   after  all,  of  any  value  to  the 
American  and  -^^^^m^  Luthcrau   prcachcr  ?   it  may  be   asked. 
German.  Wc  cauuot  couccal  our  sorrow,  that  that  term, 

"  American,"  should  be  made  so  emphatic,  dear  and  hallowed 
though  it  be  to  our  heart.  Why  should  we  break  or  weaken 
the  golden  chain  which  unites  us  to  the  high  and  holy  associ- 
ations of  our  history  as  a  Church,  by  thrusting  into  a  false 
position  a  word  which  makes  a  national  appeal  ?  Is  there  a 
conflict  between  the  two,  when  carried  to  their  very  farthest 
limits  ?  Must  Lutheranism  be  shorn  of  its  glory  to  adapt  it 
to  our  times  or  our  land  ?  !N"o  !  Our  land  is  great,  and  wide, 
and  glorious,  and  destined,  we  trust,  under  the  sunlight  of  her 
free  institutions,  long  to  endure ;  but  our  faith  is  wider,  and 
greater,  and  is  eternal.  The  world  owes  more  to  the  Reforma- 
tion than  to  America  ;  America  owes  more  to  it  than  to  her- 
self. The  names  of  our  Country  and  of  our  Church  should 
excite  no  conflict,  but  blend  harmoniously  together.  We  are 
placed  here  in  the  midst  of  sectarianism,  and  it  becomes  us,  not 
lightly  to  consent  to  swell  that  destructive  torrent  of  separ- 
atism which  threatens  the  welfare  of  pure  Christianity  on  our 
shores  more  than  all  other  causes  combined.  We  are  sur- 
rounded by  the  children  of  those  Churches,  which  claim  an 
origin  in  the  Reformation.  We  sincerely  respect  and  love 
them  ;  we  fervently  pray  that  they  may  be  increased  in  every 
labor  of  love,  and  may  be  won  more  and  more  to  add  to  that 
precious  truth,  which  they  set  forth  with  such  power,  those  no 
less  precious  doctrines  which,  in  the  midst  of  so  wide  an  aban- 


AMERICAN  AND    GERMAN.  209 

donment  of  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  God  has,  in 
our  Confession,  preserved  to  us.  But  how  shall  we  make  our- 
selves worthy  of  their  respect,  and  lift  ourselves  out  of  the 
sphere  of  that  pitiful  little  sectarianism  which  is  crawling  con- 
tinually over  all  that  is  churchly  and  stahle?  We  must  begin 
by  knowing  ourselves,  and  being  true  to  that  knowledge.  Let 
us  not,  with  our  rich  coffers,  play  the  part  of  beggars,  and  ask 
favors  where  we  have  every  ability  to  impart  them.  JSTo 
Church  can  maintain  her  self-respect  or  inspire  respect  in 
others,  which  is  afraid  or  ashamed  of  her  own  history,  and 
which  rears  a  dubious  fabric  on  the  ignorance  of  her  ministry 
and  of  her  members.  Whatever  flickerings  of  success  may 
play  around  her,  she  will  yet  sink  to  rise  no  more,  and,  Avorse 
than  this,  no  honest  man  will  lament  her  fall ;  for  however 
such  a  moral  dishonesty  may  be  smoothed  over,  every  reflect- 
ing man  sees  that  such  a  Church  is  an  organized  lie,  with  a 
ministry,  congregations,  churches,  and  societies  united  to  sus- 
tain a  lie.  From  this  feeling  a  gracious  Providence  has  almost 
wholly  preserved  our  Church  in  this  country.  To  whatever 
extent  want  of  information  or  the  pressure  of  surrounding 
denominations  may  have  produced  the  practical  departure  of 
individuals  from  some  of  the  principles  of  our  Church,  our 
common  ori2:in  and  our  o-lorious  annals  have  formed  a  bond  of 
sympathy.  Struggling  against  difficulties  which  would  have 
crushed  a  church  with  less  vitality,  the  Lutheran  Communion 
in  this  country  has  always  preserved  some  honorable  feeling 
of  her  own  dignity  and  proper  value.  The  salt  which  has  'pre- 
served her  is  Germanic.  On  these  shores  she  has  yet,  properly, 
little  history,  comparatively  ;  when  she  looks  toward  the  realm 
of  her  might  and  glory,  she  must  cast  her  eye  over  the  Atlantic 
wave,  and  roll  back  her  thoughts  over  the  lapse  of  two  cen- 
turies. She  has  been,  and  is  yet,  passing  through  a  period  of 
transition  from  one  language  and  one  national  bond  to  another. 
The  question  of  language  has  interest  only  so  far  as  it  concerns 
the  question  of  Church  life,  and  in  its  bearings  on  this  should 
be  watched  with  a  tender  and  trembling  interest.  Xo  doubt 
there  were  cases  in  which  the  opposition  of  the  earlier  Lu- 
therans in  this  country,  to  the  introduction  of  the  English 

14 


210  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

language  in  our  Church,  arose  from  narrow  views  and  feelings 
simply  as  Germans,  but  in  yet  more  instances  did  it  spring 
from  fears,  which  our  subsequent  history  has  shown  not  to  be 
wholly  groundless,  that  Lutheranism  itself — our  life,  our  doc- 
trines, our  usages  —  so  dear  to  their  hearts,  might  be  endan- 
gered by  the  change. 

Whatever,  then,  may  be  our  sentiments  as  to  the  judgment 
they  displayed,  let  us  do  honor,  at  least,  to  their  motives. 
They  saw  that  the  language  of  our  land  contained  no  Lutheran 
literature,  no  history  just  to  the  claims  of  our  Church,  no  spirit 
which,  on  the  whole,  could  be  said  fully  to  meet  the  genius  of 
our  Church.  They  feared  that, under  these  circumstances,  Lu- 
theranism would  melt  away,  or  become  the  mere  creature  of 
the  influences  with  which  it  was  surrounded.  They  clung  to 
their  language,  therefore,  as  a  rampart  which  could  shut  out 
for  a  time  the  flood  which  was  breaking  upon  them  each  day 
with  increasing  force.  For  what,  then,  do  we  blame  them  ? 
Kot  for  their  intense  love  to  the  Church,  or  their  ardent  desire 
to  preserve  it  in  its  purity,  nor  for  that  sensitive  apprehension 
which  is  always  the  ofl'spring  of  aflection  ;  not,  in  a  word,  that 
they  were  Lutherans  indeed.  If  we  blame  these  venerable 
men  at  all,  it  is  that  they  were  not  Lutheran  enough  ;  that  is, 
that,  with  all  their  devotion  to  the  Church,  they  had  not 
that  inspiring  confidence  which  they  should  have  had  in  the 
power  of  her  principles,  to  triumph  eventually  over  every  ob- 
stacle. Would  that  they  could  have  realized  what  we  believe 
most  firmly,  (though  part  of  it  yet  lies  in  the  future,)  that,  after 
all  the  changes  of  national  existence,  and  of  language,  all  press- 
ure from  the  churches  and  the  people  around  us,  our  holy  faith 
shall  come  forth  in  all  her  purity  and  power,  eventually  to  per- 
form, in  the  great  drama  in  our  western  realm,  a  part  as  im- 
portant as  that  which  she  bore  in  her  original  glory  in  the 
history  of  the  world. 

And  having  spoken  thus  freely  in  regard  to  a  misapprehen- 
sion on  one  side  of  this  question,  we  shall  be  equally  candid  in 
speaking  the  truth  upon  the  other. 

It  is  evident  that  our  American  fathers  clung  to  the  German 
language  from  no  idea  that  there  was  any  connection  between 


ACQUAINTANCE    WITH  THE    CHURCn.  211 

Lutheranism  and  that  language  as  such  —  some  mysterious 
coherence  between  its  sounds  and  inflections,  and  the  truths 
of  our  Church  ;  so  that,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  and  by 
an  essential  necessity,  the  English  language  and  Lutheranism 
could  not  harmonize  together.  It  is  fanaticism  to  attempt  to 
narrow  our  great  Church  into  an  English  sect  or  a  German  one. 
The  Lutheran  Church  is  neither  English  nor  German ;  and 
though  both  should  cease  to  be  the  tongues  of  living  men,  she 
cannot  pass  away.  The  greatest  works  of  her  original  literature, 
some  of  her  symbols,  part  of  her  Church  service  and  hymns, 
were  in  the  Latin  language ;  and  surely  if  she  can  live  in  a 
dead  language,  she  can  live  in  any  living  one.  She  has 
achieved  some  of  her  most  glorious  victories  where  other  lan- 
guages are  spoken.  She  sought  at  an  early  period  to  diffuse 
her  principles  among  the  Oriental  Churches,  and  we  will  add, 
that  she  is  destined,  on  these  shores,  in  a  language  which  her 
fathers  knew  not,  to  illustrate  more  gloriously,  because  in  a 
more  unfettered  form,  her  true  life  and  spirit,  than  she  has 
done  since  the  Reformation. 

If  the  question  may  be  mooted.  How  far  shall  we  adopt  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation,  and  of  our  earlier  importance  oi 
Church?  —  this  admits  of  no  discussion :  Whether  ^"  acquaintance 

with  tlie  Church. 

we  should  make  ourselves  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  those  principles  ;  —  for  the  rejection  even  of  error,  unless 
it  result  from  an  enlightened  judgment,  and  a  mature  intel- 
ligent conviction,  has  no  value  whatever  —  nay,  is  in  itself  a 
worse  error  than  any  which  it  can  possibly  reject,  for  it  rests 
on  the  foundation  on  which  almost  all  moral  falsehood  has 
arisen.  Let  our  ministry  enter  upon  a  profound  study  of 
the  history  and  of  the  principles  of  our  Church,  and  if  the  re- 
sult of  a  ripe  judgment  shall  be  any  other  than  an  increased 
devotion  to  the  first,  and  an  ardent  embracing  of  the  second, 
we  shall  feel  ourselves  bound  to  re-examine  the  grounds  on 
which  such  an  examination  has  led  us  to  repose  with  the  con- 
fidence of  a  child  on  that  maternal  bosom,  where  so  many, 
whose  names  are  bright  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  have  rested 
their  dying  heads,  and  have  experienced  that  what  she  taught 


212  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

them  was  sufficient,  not  only  to  overcome  every  trial  of  life,  but 
every  terror  of  the  grave. 

First  in  place,  and  first  in  importance  among  those  great 
documentary  testimonies  of  the  Church  which  came  forth 
in  the  Reformation,  is  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
ConfLion?*  "  The  man  of  the  world  should  feel  a  deep  interest 
in  a  document  which  bears  to  the  whole  cause  of  freedom  as 
close  a  relation  as  the  "  Declaration  of  Independence  "  does 

*  Works  connected  with  the  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  chronologi- 
cally arranged. 

1530,  (and  the  Avorks  of  contemporaries.) 

1.  Luther:  Werke  (Walch.)  xvi.  734-2145.  Leipz.  xx.  1-293. —  Briefe  :  De 
Wette.iv.  1-180.  vi.  112-128.  —2.  Melanchthon  :  Epistolae  etc.  (Corp.  Reform.) 
ii.  1-462. —  3.  NuRENBERG  envoys:  Briefe:  Strobels  Miscellan.  lit.  inhalt.  ii. 
3-48.  iii.  103-220.  cf.  Fikenscher.  —  4.  Pro.  Relig.  Christ,  res  gestae  in  Comit 
Augustae  Vind.  hab.  1530.  in  Cyprian,  Beylage  vii.  Written  by  a  Roman  Cath- 
olic during  the  Diet,  and  published  with  the  Imperial  privilege.  — 5.  Bruck  : 
(Pontanus,  Heinse)  Verzeichniss  der  Handlung.  herausgeg,  von  Foerstemann. 
Archiv.  Halle  1831.   (Apologia  MS.),  in  refutation  of  the  work  just  mentioned. 

6.  OsiANDRi,  Philippi  Hassiae  :  Senat.  Noremberg.  Literae  in  Camerarii  Vit. 

Melanchthonis,  ed.  Strobel.  407-414. —7.  Spalatin  :  Berichte,  in  Luther's  Werke, 
Leipz.  XX.  202-212.  —  8.  Spalatin  :  Annales  Reformationis,  published  by  Cyprian. 
Leipz.  1718.  131-289.  — 9.  Myconius  :  Historia  Reformationis,  from  1517-1542, 
published  by  Cyprian,  1718,  p.  91,  very  brief.  — 10.  Camerarius  :  Vita  Melanch- 
thonis (15GG)  Strobel.  Noesselt,  Halae  1777.  119-134. —1555.  Sleidan  :  The  Gen- 
eral History  of  the  Reformation,  Englished  and  continued  by  Bohun.  London, 
1689.  Fol.  127-140.-1574.  Wigand  :  Histor.  de  Augustana  Confessione.  Regi- 
omont.  1574,  in  Cyprian  Beylag.  x.  — 1576.  Chytraeus  :  Histor.  der  Aug,  Conf. 
Rost.  1576.  Frankfort  1580.  — 1578.  Do.  Latin.  Frcf.  ad  Moen.  — 1582.  Do.  His- 
toire  de  la  Conf.  d'Auxpourg.  mise  en  Francois  par  le  Cop.  Anvers.  — 1576. 
CoELESTiNUS  :  Ilistoria  Comitiorum.  Frankf.  on  the  Oder,  1576-77.  —  (Kirchner, 
Selnecker,  and  Chemnitz)  :  Solidaac  vera  Confess.  August.  Historia  (against  Wolf) 
translat.  per  Godfried.  Lipsiae,  1685,  4to.  — 1620.  Sarpi  :  Histor.  Concil.  Tri- 
dent. London,  1620.  40-45.-1630.  Bakius,R.  :  Confessio  Augustana  triumplians: 
das  istdie  trefflich-schone  Geschicht  der  Wahr.  Ungeend.  Augsburg  Confession. 
Magdeb.  1630.-1631.  Saubert  :  Miracula  Aug.  Conf.  Norimb.  4to.  — 1646.  Calo- 
vius  :  Criticus  sacer  vel  Commentar.  sup.  August.  Conf.  Lips.  1646,  4to.  p.  19-45. 
—  1654.  Goebel:  Predigten,  1-119.-1665.  Carpzov:  Isagoge.  2d  cd.  1675.  90- 
107.  — 1669.  Arnold:  Unparth.  Kirchen  u.  Ketzer  Historien.  Schaffhausen,  1740.  3 
vols.  Folio,  i.  809.  1230.-1681.  Mai.mbourg:  Historic  der  Lutheranisme.  Paris, 
1680.  178-209.  —1686.  Du  Pin:  Bibliotheque.  A  new  Ecclesiastical  History  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  London,  1720.  Fol.  ch.  xxii.— Seckendorf  :  Commen- 
tariusde  Lutheranismo,  1686.  Franc,  and  Lips.  1692  p.  150-209.  Ubers.  Frick. — 
1714.  Do.  Reformations  Geschichte  von  Roos,  1781.-1705.  MUlleri,  J.  J.:  His- 
toria von.  ..  Protestation  ...  wie  auch   Augspurgische  Confession,    1705,   4to. — 


THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  213 

to  our  own  as  Americans.  The  philosopher  should  examine 
what  has  formed  the  opinions  and  aftected  the  destinies  of 
millions  of  our  race.  To  the  Christian  it  presents  itself  as  the 
greatest  w^ork,  regarded  in  its  historical  relations,  in  which 
pure  religion  has  been  sustained  by  human  hands.  The  theo- 
logian will  find  it  a  key  to  a  whole  era  of  fervent,  yet  profound 
thought,  and  the  Lutheran,  to  w4iom  an  argument  on  its  value, 
to  him,  must  be  presented,  is  beyond  the  reach  of  argument. 

— 1706.  Junker:  Ehrengedachtniss  Lutheri,  Lipsiae,  170G,  8vo.  ^30. — 1708. 
Loescher:  Historia  Motuum.  2d  ed.  1723,  8  vols.  4to.  i.  158-180. —  1715.  Hil- 
DEBRAND  :  Historia  Concilioium.  Helmstadii,  1-715,311-314.  — 1716.  Fleuter's 
Historischer  Katechismus.  3d  ed.  1718.  339-365.  —  1719.  Cypkian  :  Hilaria  Evan- 
gelica.  Gotha,  1719.  Nachricht,  von  der  Augspurg  Confession,  p.  551-555.  —  1727. 
BuDDEUS :  De  CoUoq.  Charitat.  Secul.  xvi.  (Miscellan.  Sacra)  1727.  — 1730. 
Cyprian:  Historia  der  Augsb.  Conf.  aus  den  Original- Acten — mit  Beylagen. 
Gotha, 'Wll^,  4to.  Racknitz:  Flores  in  Aug.  Conf.  1730.  — Pfaff:  Lib.  Symb. 
Introd.  Histor.  cap.  iii. — Hoffmann,C.  G.  :  Summar.  Betrachtung.  der  auf  Augsp. 
Reichstage,  1530.  Actorum  Religionis,  1730.  —  Salig  :  VoUstandige  Historic  der 
Aug.  Conf.  3  vols.  Halle,  1730,  4to. — Do.  Geschicbte  der  Aug.  Conf.  aus  Sleidan, 
Spalatin,  Coelestinus,  Cbytraeus,  Hortleder,  Seckendorflf  u.  Miiller.  1730.  In  the 
form  of  a  dialogue.  —1732.  Walch,  J.  G. :  Introd.  in  L.  S.  Jena,  1732.  157-482. 
— Hane  :  Historia  Crit.  A.  C. — 1740.  Moreri:  Le  Grand  Dictionaire  Historique, 
1740.  8  vols.  Folio.  Art.  Confession  d' Augsburg,  and  Diete. — 1745.  Weis.mann  : 
Introduc.  in  memorab.  eccles.  Histor.  Sacr.  Halae,  1745.  i.  1498-1504. — 1751. 
Boerneri:  Institut.  Theolog.  Symbolicae.  23-55.  —  1761.  Baumgarten  :  Erleu- 
terungen.  45.  — 1765.  Walchii,  G.  F.  :  Breviarium  Theolog.  Symb.  Ec.  Luth. 
Getting.  1765.  57-75. — 1775.  Semleri  :  Apparatus  ad  Libr.  Symb.  36.  —  1781. 
Planck:  Gesch.  Protestant.  LehrbegriflFs.  Leipz.  1781.   8  vols.  8vo.  iii.  1.  1-178. 

—  1791.  Henke:  Geschichte  der  Chr.  Kirche.  4th  ed.  1806.  iii.  139-143.  ix. 
(Vater)  94-97.  — 1782.  Weber:  Kritische  Gesch.  d.  Aug.  Conf.  Franf.  1782.  2 
vols.  8vo.  — 1804.  Schrockh:  Kirchengesch.  seit  der  Reformat.  Leipz.  1804.  i. 
442-482.  — 1811.  Tittmann  :  Instit.  SymboL  80-90.  —  1826.  Schopff  :  Symb. 
Buch.  i.  24.-1827.  Hase:  Libr.  Symb.  Lips.  1827.  Prolegom  iii-cxiv.  —  1829. 
Rotermund:  Geschichte  des.  .  zu  Augsb.  Ubergeb.  Glaubensbek.  nebst. .  Lebens- 
nachrichten.  Hannover,  1829.  8vo. — Cunow  :  Augsb.  Confession,  1829.  —  Haan  : 
Darstellung,  1829.  —  Danz  :  Die  Augspurg.  Conf.  nach  ihrer  Geschichte,  etc.  Jena, 

1829,  8vo. — Yelin  :  Versuch,  55-60.  Hammerschmidt:  Gesch.  d.  Augsb.  Con- 
fess. 1829.  von  Ammon:  Jubelfestbuch,  1829.  — 1830.  Schiebler:  Reichstag  zu 
Augsburg,  1830. — Spieker:  Confessio  Fidei,  etc.  Loeber.  Faceus. — Pfaff: 
Geschichte  des  Reichst.  zu  Augs.  u.  des  Augsb.  Glaubensbek.  Stuttg.  1830.  — 
Tittmann  :  Aug.  Conf.  —  Fikenscher  :  Geschichte  des  Reichst.  zu  Augsp.  Nurnb. 

1830,  8vo.— Martens:  Ueber  die  Symb.  Bucher.   Halberstadt,  1830.  8vo.  63-80. 

—  1831.  Tittmann:  Die  Evangelische  Kircho  im  1530  und  1830.  Leipz.  1831.— 
Marheineke:    (1831.)  —  1833-1835.    Foeustc.mann  :    Urkundenbuch.    2  vols.  — 


214  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

It  is  our  shield  and  our  sword,  our  ensign  and  our  arming,  the 
constitution  of  our  state,  the  life  of  our  body,  the  germ  of  our 
being.  It  is  the  bond  of  our  union  throughout  the  world,  and 
by  it,  and  with  it,  our  Church,  as  a  distinct  organization, 
must  stand  or  fall.  Her  life  began,  indeed,  before  it,  as  the 
vital  point  of  the  embryo  exists  before  the  heart  and  brain  are 
formed,  but  having  once  evoked  the  Confession  into  which  her 
own  life  flowed  —  they  live  or  perish  together,  as  that  embryo 
grows  or  dies,  as  the  vital  organs  expand  in  life  or  shrink  in 
death. 

In  the  Symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  first 
place,  indeed,  is  justly  held  by  those  general  Confessions,  in 
which  the  pure  Church  has  united,  in  every  age  since  their 
formation,  and  in  which,  throughout  the  world,  it  now  con- 
curs. These  are  the  Apostles',  the  Nicseno-Constantinopolitan, 
and  Athanasian  creeds.  She  thus  vindicates  her  true  catho- 
licity and  antiquity,  and  declares  that  the  name  of  Lutheran 
does  not  define  her  essence,  but  simply  refers  to  one  grand  fact 

1835.  Bretschneider  :  Annales  vitae  Melanchthonis.  a.  1530.  (2d  vol.  of  Corpus 
Reform.)— Cox:  Life  of  Melanchthon.  Boston,  1835.  Ch.  viii.  — 1837.  Kollner: 
Symb.  d.  Luth.  Kirche.  150-22G,  —  D'Aubigne  :  Reformation  (1837.) —  1838. 
AuDiN  :  Histoire  de  la  vie,  etc.,  de  Martin  Luther.  Paris,  1845.  Chap.  xxiv. 
XXV.  Translated  from  the  French.  Philadelphia,  1841.  Chap,  xlvii,  xlviii.  Trans- 
lated by  Turnbull.  London,  1854.  Vol.  ii.  319-353. —  1839.  Stang  :  M.  Luther  : 
8ein  Leben  u.  Wirken.  Stuttg.  1839.  600-687.  —  Ranke  :  Reformation  (1839.) 
— 1840.  Wessenberg  :  Kirchenversammlungen  des  15ten  und  16ten  Jahrhun- 
derts.  iii.  115.  — 1841.  Rudelbach  :  Histor,  kritisch.  Einleitung  in  die  Augsb. 
Conf.  Dresden,  1841.  — 1842.  Stebbing  :  History  of  the  Church  from  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  etc.  London,  1842.  i.  9-56. — Neudecker  :  Die  Ilauptversuche 
«ur  Pacification  der  Ev.  Prot.  Kirche  Deutschlands,  von  der  Reformation  bis 
auf  unsere  Tage.  Leipz,  1846.57-62.  — 1846.  Michelet:  Luther;  translated  by 
Smith.  New  York,  1846.  p.  147.  —1847.  Francke  :  Lib.  Symb.  xiii-xx.  — 1848. 
MiJLLER  :  Symb.  Blich.  liv.  Translated:  The  Book  of  Concord  ;  New  Market, 
1851.  xxxiii-xxxviii.  2d  ed.  1854.  37-43. — 1849.  Zimmermann  :  Luther's  Leben 
(Ref.  Schr.  iv.)  471-481.  — 1853.  Sartorius  :  Beitrage.  2d  ed.  1-21.  "The  Glory 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession." — 1854.  Herzoo's  Real  Encyclop.  Hamb.  1854.  i. 
603-610. —Mattiies:  Comparat.  Symbolik.  61-67.  —  1855.  Leuderhose:  Life  of 
Melanchthon,  translated  by  Krotel.  Philadelphia,  1855.  Chap.  xi.  —  1857.  ITof- 
MANN  :  Rud.  Symbolik.  229-231.  — Bindseil,H.  E.  :  Corpus  Reformatorum.  xxvi. 
Pars.  Prior.  —  1866.  Guerike  :  Handb.  der  Kirchen-Gesch.  iii.  §  176.  (9th  ed.) 
1866  —Winer:  Darstellung.  3d  ed.  ii.  1866.  —  1868.  Kurtz:  Lehrbuch  d.  K.  C. 
I  132.  6.  7. 


ROMANISM  AND   ITS    CREED.  215 

in  her  history,  her  restoration  in  the  great  Reformation.  The 
most  splendid  phase  of  that  portion  of  her  annals  is  to  he  found 
in  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  and  the  "  Good  Confession  "  whiclx 
she  then  "  witnessed  "  before  the  mighty  of  the  world.  The 
city  of  Augsburg  has  not  been  wanting  in  historical  associa- 
tions of  high  interest,  but  they  are  dim  before  its  chief  glory. 
Its  ancient  spires,  on  which  the  soft  light  of  many  a  sinking 
sun  had  rested,  were  then  illumined  by  a  milder  radiance, 
which  shall  never  set.  It  slopes  towards  two  considerable 
rivers,  between  which  it  lies  embosomed,  but  never  had  that 
"  river  which  makes  glad  the  city  of  God,"  so  poured  through 
it  its  stream  of  life,  as  on  that  eventful  day.  Thrice  since  that 
period  the  thunder  of  artillery  and  the  clash  of  arms  have 
sounded  around  and  within  it  —  but  it  is  our  heroes  whose 
glory  still  keeps  its  name  fresh  in  the  memories  of  men,  and 
shall  keep  it  when  its  palaces  have  crumbled  into  dust. 

An  age  of  darkness  is  a  creedless  age  ;  corruption  in  doctrine 
works  best  when  it  is  unfettered  by  an  explicit  Romanism  and 
statement  of  that  doctrine.  Between  the  Athana-  '^^  ^''^^^' 
sian  Creed  (probably  about  A.  D.  434)  and  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, there  is  no  new  General  Creed.  Error  loves  ambiguities. 
In  the  contest  with  Rome  the  Reformers  complained  bitterly 
that  she  refused  to  make  an  explicit  official  statement  of  her 
doctrine.  ''  Our  opponents,"  says  the  Apology,*  "  do  not  be- 
stow the  labor,  that  there  may  be  among  the  people  some  cer- 
tain statement  of  the  chief  points  of  the  ecclesiastical  doc- 
trines." Just  in  proportion  to  the  blind  devotion  of  men  to 
Popery  were  they  reluctant  to  have  its  doctrines  stated  in  an 
authorized  form,  and  only  under  the  compulsion  of  a  public 
sentiment  w4iich  was  wrought  by  the  Reformation,  did  the 
Church  of  Rome  at  length  convene  the  Council  of  Trent.  Its 
decisions  were  not  completed  and  set  forth  until  seventeen  years 
after  Luther's  death,  and  thirty-three  years  after  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  The  proper  date  of  the  distinctive  life  of  a  partic- 
ular Church  is  furnished  by  her  Creed.  Tested  by  the  General 
Creeds,  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  has  the  same  claim 
as  the  Romish  Church  to  be  considered  in  unity  with  the  early 

*  281,   43. 


216  ■  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATIOK. 

Church,  —  but  as  a  particular  Church,  with  a  distinctive  bond 
and  token  of  doctrinal  union,  she  is  more  than  thirty  years 
older  than  the  Romish  Church.  Our  Church  has  the  oldest 
distinctive  Creed  now  in  use  in  any  large  division  of  Christen- 
dom. That  Creed  is  the  Confession  of  Augsburg.  Could  the 
Church  have  set  forth  and  maintained  such  a  Confession  as 
that  of  Augsburg  before  the  time  over  which  the  Dark  Ages 
extended,  those  Dark  Ages  could  not  have  come.  There 
would  have  been  no  Reformation,  for  none  would  have  been 
needed. 

The  mighty  agitations  caused  by  the  restoration  of  divine 
truth  bv  Luther  and  his  s-reat  co-workers,  had  led 

The  Angsbuig  ''  ,  .^.  .  n-     ^-  i 

Confession :  Pre-  to   attcmpts   at   hamionizmg  the   conmctmg   ele- 
liminaricstopre-   j^euts,  cspccially  by  action  at  the  Diets  of  the  Em- 
pire.    At  the  Diet  of  Worms  (1521)  Luther  refuses 
to  retract,  and  the  Edict  goes  forth  commanding  his  seizure 

■*  I,   Official  writings  which  prepared  the  way  for  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

1.  The  visitational  articles:  the  Saxon  visitation  articles. 

a.  The  Latin  Articles  by  Melanchthon,  1527.  These  are  extremely  rare,  and 
are  found  in  none  of  the  older  editions  of  Melanchthon  or  Luther.  Given  in  the 
Corpus  Reformatorum.     Vol.  xxvi.  (1857.)  7. 

h.  Melanchthon's  Articles  of  Visitation  in  German,  with  Luther's  Preface  and 
gome  changes  by  him.  1528.  (Last  Edition  1538.)  Given  in  Melanchthon's  Werke 
(von  Koethe)  i.  83-130.  Corpus  Reformatorum  xxvi.  49  —  in  Luther's  Werke. 
Jena  iv.  341.  Leipzig,  xix.  622.  Walch.  x.  1902.  Erlangen  xxiii.  3.  These  ar- 
ticles are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Saxon  visitation  articles  of  1592,  which 
are  given  as  an  Appendix  in  various  editions  of  the  Symbolical  Books  (Miiller,  p. 
845.) 

2.  The  fifteen  articles  of  Marburg.  (October  3d,  1529.)  cf.  Feuerlin  42.  These 
articles  are  given  in  Luther's  Werke,  Jena  iv.  469.  Leipzig  xix,  530.  Walch.  xvii. 
2357.  Erlangen  65,  88.  Reformatorische  Schriften  von  Zimmermann  (1847)  iii. 
420.  In  all  these  editions  the  fourteenth  article  (on  Infant  Baptism)  has  been 
omitted,  so  that  they  make  only  fourteen  articles.  AValch,  however,  (xxiii.  35,) 
gives  the  fourteenth  article  among  the  omissions  supplied  (compare  do.  Prcf.  p. 
6.)  —  In  the  Corpus  Reformatorum.  xxvi.  121-128.  xiv.article  given,  —  Zwingle's 
Werke  (Schuler  u.  Schulthess)  ii.  iii.  44-58.  xiv.  article  given.  —  Chytraei  His- 
toria.  355.  The  fourteenth  article  omitted. —Miiller  J.  J.  Historie.  p.  305-309. 
Fourteenth  article  given. — Rudelbach.  Reformation  Lutherthum  und  Union 
(Leipzig,  1830)  Appendix  665-668.  from  Miiller,  of  course  with  fourteenth  ar- 
ticle.—  They  have  been  translated  into  Latin;  Solida  ac  vera  Confess.  August. 
Histor.  p.  128-131.— Zwinglii  Opera  (Schuler  et  Schulthess)  iv :  ii.  181.  cf.  Seck- 
<;ndorf  ii.  138.  —  In  French  in  Le  Cop's  Chytneus  463-466.  —  Into  English  by  Dr. 
Lintner.   Missionary,  1857.  (Without  the  fourteenth  article.) 


PRELIMINARIES  TO  PREPARATION.  217 

and  the  burning  of  his  books  ;  at  the  Diet  of  l!Turemberg  (1522) 
Cheregati,  the  Papal  Nuncio,  demands  the  fulfilment  of  the 
Edict  of  Worms,  and  the  assistance  of  all  faithful  friends  of 
the  Church  against  Luther.  The  first  Diet  at  Spires  (1526) 
had  virtually  annulled  the  Edict  of  Worms,  by  leaving  its 

3.  The  xvii.  articles  of  Schwabach,  1529,  (miscalled  frequently  the  Torgau 
articles.)  For  the  special  Bibliography  of  these  articles,  cf.  Walch.  Bib.  Theo- 
log.  Select,  i.  330,  and  Introd.  in  L.  S.  163.  — Feuerlin  78,  cf.  Layritii :  De  Arti- 
culis  Suobacens.  Wittenb.  1719.  4to.  —  Weber,  Kritisch.  Gesch.  i.  13.  K.  PfaflF. 
i.  94.  Evangelical  Review,  i,  246-249  (which  presents  the  confused  view  of  Walch. 
Introd.  in  L.  S.,  and  of  the  older  writers.) 

1-  In  June  1528,  the  first  convention  was  held  in  Schwabach.  The  xxiii.  articles 
of  that  convention  are  not  to  be  confounded,  as  they  have  been,  with  the  xvii.  ar- 
ticles of  the  second  convention. 

2-  The  second  convention  at  Schwabach  was  fixed  for  October  16th,  1529. 

a.  At  this  convention  the  xvii.  articles  were  presented. 

They  are  given  in  Luther's  Werke,  Jena  v.  14.  Leipzig  xx.  1-3.  Walch  xxi. 
681,  778.  Erlangen  xxiv.  322.  —  Corpus  Reformatorum  xxvi.  151-160.  —  Chy- 
traeus,  22-26,  Miiller,  Historic  442-448.  Cyprian,  Bey  lag.  159,  most  critically 
in  Weber,  Krit.  Geschicht.  Beylagen  i.  and  Corp.  Reform. 

They  have  been  translated  into  Latin :  Coelestinus  i.  25.  Pfafi",  Lib.  Symb. 
Adpend.  3.  —  French:  Le  Cop's  Chytraeus,  p.  19. — English:  Evangelical  Re- 
view, ii.  78-84.  (With  the  old  title,  "  Articles  of  Torgau.") 

b.  Reply  of  Wimpina,  Mensing,  etc.,  to  these  articles,  1530.     This  is  given  in 
Luther's  Werke,  Jena  v.  16.  Leipz.  xx.  3-8. 

**  "         Walch.  xvi.  766. 

Cf.  Seckendorf,  lib.  ii.  152.  Cyprian  52.  Evangelical  Review,  ii.  83. 

c.  Luther's  answer  to  the  outcry  of  the  Papists  on  the  xvii.  articles,  given  in 
Luther's  Werke,  Leipz.  xx.  8. 

"  "         Walch,  xvi.  778. 

"  "         Erlangen,  24,  319. 

Cyprian,  Beyl.  159. 

4.  The  Articles  of  Torgau,  1530.  (confounded  frequently  with  the  articles  of 
Schwabach.)  —  Cf.  Seckendorf,  ii.  151.  Miiller  441.  Cyprian  52,  who  suppose 
what  we  have  called  the  "Articles  of  Swabach"  to  be  in  fact  the  articles  sent 
to  Torgau  — Cf.  Salig:  i.  158.  Walch:  Luther's  Werke  xvi.  681,  who  suppose 
the  articles  of  Schwabach  to  have  been  somewhat  changed  and  sent  to  Torgau. — 
Cf.  Weber:  Krit.  Gesch.  i.  16-19.  Foerstemann:  Urkundenbuch  i.  40-41.  —  KoU- 
ner:  Symbolik.  i  156-168.  —  Corpus  Reformator.  xxvi.  161-170,  who  prove  the 
Articles  of  Swabach  and  those  of  Torgau  to  be  totally  distinct.  The  Articles 
of  Torgau,  truly  entitled  to  that  name,  bear,  in  a  large  degree,  to  the  second 
part  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  relation  which  the  Schwabach  Articles  bear 
to  the  first  part.  —  The  Articles  of  Torgau  were  discovered  by  Foerstemann  (1833) 
and  given  to  the  world  by  him,  in  his  Urkundenbuch,  i.  66-84.  — Given  also  in 
Corpus  Reformatorum,  xxvi.  171-200. 


218  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

execution  to  the  unforced  action  of  the  different  Estates, 
and  it  promised  the  speedy  convocation  of  a  General  Coun- 
cil, or  at  least  of  a  N'ational  Assembly.  The  second  Diet 
at  Spires  (1529)  quenched  the  hopes  inspired  by  this  earlier 
action.  It  decreed  that  the  Edict  of  Worms  should  be 
strictly  enforced  where  it  had  already  been  received;  the 
celebration  of  the  Romish  Mass  protected,  and  the  preach- 
ers bound  to  confine  themselves  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Romish  Church  in  their  teachings.  The  Protest  of  the 
Evangelical  Princes  against  this  decision,  originated  the  name 
Protestants. 

The  Protestant  Princes  made  their  appeal  to  a  free  General 
Council.  Charles  V,,  after  vainly  endeavoring  to  obtain  the 
consent  of  the  Pope  to  the  convocation  of  a  General  Council, 
summoned  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  promising  to  appear  in  per- 
son, and  to  give  a  gracious  hearing  to  the  whole  question, 
so  that  the  "one  only  Christian  truth  might  be  maintained, 
that  all  might  be  subjects  and  soldiers  of  the  one  Christ,  and 
live  in  the  fellowship  and  unity  of  one  Church."  To  this  end 
the  Emperor  directed  the  friends  of  the  Evangelical  faith  to 
prepare,  for  presentation  to  the  Diet,  a  statement  on  the  points 
of  division. 

In  consequence  of  this  order  of  the  Emperor,  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  who  was  the  leader  of  the  Evangelical  Princes,  directed 
Luther,  in  conjunction  with  the  other  theologians  at  Witten- 
berg, to  draw  up  a  summary  of  doctrine,  and  a  statement  of 
the  abuses  to  be  corrected.  The  statement  drawn  up  in  conse- 
quence of  this,  had,  as  its  groundwork,  Articles  which  were 
already  prepared  ;  and  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  ripest 
result  of  a  series  of  labors,  in  which  this  was  one,  and  as  much 
confusion  of  statement  exists  on  the  relations  of  these  labors, 
it  may  be  useful  to  give  the  main  points  in  chronological 
order. 

1.  1529.  October  1,  2,  3.  The  Conference  at  Marburg  took 
place  between  Luther  and  the  Saxon  divines  upon  the  one  side, 
and  Zwingle  and  the  Swiss  divines  on  the  other.  Luther,  in 
conjunction  with  others  of  our  great  theologians,  prepared  the 
XV.  Marburg  Articles,  October,  1529.     These  Articles  were 


PRELIMINARIES   TO  PREPARATION.  219 

meant  to  show  on  what  points  the  Lutherans  and  Zwinglians 
agreed,  and  also  to  state  the  point  on  which  the}^  did  not  agree, 
and  as  a  fiiir  statement  of  the  points,  disputed  and  undisputed, 
were  signed  hy  all  the  theologians  of  both  parties. 

2.  1529.  Oct.  16.  On  the  basis  of  these  XV.  Articles  were 
prepared,  by  Luther,  with  the  advice  and  assistance  of  the 
other  theologians,  the  XVIL  Articles  of  Schwabach,  so  called 
from  the  place  at  which  they  were  presented. 

3.  1529.  Nov.  29.  From  the  presentation  of  these  XYIL 
Articles  at  Smalcald,  they  are  sometimes  called  the  Smalcald 
Articles. 

4.  1530.  March  20.  These  XVIL  Articles  of  Luther  re- 
vised were  sent  to  Torgau,  and  were  long  called  the  Torgau 
Articles,  though  they  are  in  fact  the  revised  Articles  of  Schwa- 
bach.    These  Articles  are  mainly  doctrinal. 

5.  March  20.  In  addition  to  these,  a  special  writing,  of 
which  Luther  was  the  chief  author,  in  conjunction  with  Me- 
lanchthon,  Jonas,  and  Bugenhagen,  was  prepared  by  direction 
of  the  Elector,  and  sent  to  Torgau.  These  articles  are  on  the 
abuses,"^  and  are  the  Torgau  Articles  proper. 

6.  The  XVIL  doctrinal  articles  of  Schwabach  formed  the  basis 
of  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  the  Ar- 
ticles of  Torgau  are  the  basis  of  its  articles  on  abuses,  and  both 
these  are  mainly  from  the  hand  of  Luther. 

In  six  instances,  the  very  numbers  of  the  Schwabach  Ar- 
ticles correspond  with  those  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
They  coincide  throughout,  not  only  in  doctrine,  but  in  a  vast 
number  of  cases  word  for  word,  the  Augsburg  Confession  being 
a  mere  transcript,  in  these  cases,  of  the  Schwabach  Articles. 
The  differences  are  either  merely  stylistic,  or  are  made  neces- 
sary by  the  larger  object  and  compass  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession :  but  so  thoroughly  do  the  Schwabach  Articles  condi 
tion  and  shape  every  part  of  it,  as  to.  give  it  even  the  peculiarity 
of  phraseology  characteristic  of  Luther. 

To  a  large  extent,  therefore,  Melanchthon's  work  is  but  an 
elaboration  of  Luther's,  and  to  a  large  extent  it  is  not  an 

*  For  the  latest  and  amplest  results  of  historical  investigation  of  these  points. 
Bee  Corpus  Reformat.,  vol.  xxvi.  (1858,)  cols.  97-199. 


220  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

elaboration,  but  a  reproduction.  To  Luther  belong  the  doc- 
trinal power  of  the  Confession,  its  inmost  life  and  spirit,  and 
to  Melanchthon  its  matchless  form.  Both  are  in  some  sense  its 
authors,  but  the  most  essential  elements  of  it  are  due  to  Luther, 
who  is  by  pre-eminence  its  author,  as  Melanchthon  is  its  com- 
poser. If  the  authorship  of  the  Confession  should  be  claimed 
for  Melanchthon  to  the  exclusion  of  Luther,  it  would  open  the 
second  great  Reformer  to  the  charge  of  the  most  unscrupulous 
Its  Authoisiiip-  plagiarism.  Even  had  Luther,  however,  had  no 
Luti.ers  reiatious  dircct  sliarc  iu  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  asser- 
tion would  be  too  sweeping  that  he  was  in  no  sense 
its  author.  Kot  only  as  great  leading  minds  are  in  some  sense 
the  authors  of  all  works  that  have  germinated  directly  from 
their  thoughts,  but  in  a  peculiar  sense  Luther  was  the  author 
of  Melanchthon's  theological  life  ;  he  was,  as  Melanchthon  loved 
to  call  him,  "his  most  dear  father."  All  the  earliest  and 
purest  theology  of  Melanchthon  is  largely  but  a  repetition,  in 
his  own  graceful  way,  of  Luther's  thoughts ;  and  the  Augs- 

*  Collected  works,  having  an  importance  in  the  Interpretation  and  History  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession. 

LuTHEu.  Opera  Omnia  (Latin)  (155G-58.)  Jena  1579-83.  4  Tom.  Folio. — In 
primum  Librum  Mose  Enarrationes.  1555.  Fol.  —  Schriften  und  Werke  (Boerner 
u.  Pfeifter.)  Leipz.  1729-3i.  22  vols.  Folio.  Greiff's  Register.  1740.  Fol. — 
Sammtliche  Werke.  (Walch)  Halle  1740-52.  24  vols  4to.  — Sammtliche  Werke. 
(Ammon,  Erlsperger,  Irmescher,  Plochmann)  Erlangen,  1826-1857.  65  vols, 
(German)  and  2  vols.  Register.  Invaluable  for  critical  purposes.  —  Geist,  oder 
Concordanz  der  Ansichten,  etc.  Darmstadt,  1827-31.  4  vols.  — Briefe,  Sendschrei- 
ben  u.  Bedenken  (De  Wette),  Berlin,  1826-56.  6  vols.  (The  last  edited  by  Seide- 
mann.)  —  Reformatorische  Schriften,  in  Chronologischer  Folge.  (Zimmermann) 
Darmstadt,  1846-49.  4  vols.  8vo.  —  (Lutherus  Redivivus,  oder  des  fiirnehmsten 
Lehrers  der  Augspurg.  Confess.  D.  M.  Luther's  hinterlassene  Schriftliche  Erkliir- 
ungen  .  .  .  was  der  Augspurg.  Confess,  eigentliche  iMeinung  u.  Verstandt  in  alien 
Articuln  allezeit  gewesen.  (Seidel)  Halle  1697.) —Melanchthon.  Opera  Omnia 
(Peucer  )  Wittenb.  1562-64.  4  vols.  Fol. —Opera  quae  supersunt  omnia.  (Bret- 
Bchueider)  Halle  1834-1856.  28  vols.  4to.  Indispensable  to  the  student  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  or  of  the  Reformation  in  general.  The  Loci  Theologici 
especially,  are  edited  with  a  completeness  unparalleled  in  the  Bibliography  of 
Dogmatics. —  Melanchthon.  Corpus  Doctrinae  Christianae,  das  ist,  Gantze  Summa 
der  rechten  Christlichen  Lehre,  etc.  Leipzig,  1560  Fol. — Corpus  Doctrinae 
Christianae  quae  est  summa  orthodoxi  et  Catholici  Dogmatis.  Lipsiae,  1563. 
Folio. — ZwiNGLii  Huldr.  Opera,  Completa  Editio  prima  cur.  Schulero  et  Schul* 
thessio.  Zurich  1829-1842.  8  vols.  8vo. 


ABSENCE   OF  LUTHER   FROM  AUGSBURG.         221 

burg  Confession  is  in  its  inmost  texture  the  theology  of  the 
I^ew  Testament  as  Luther  believed  it.  Melanchthon  liad  no 
creativeness  of  mind,  and  but  for  Luther,  his  name  would 
hardly  have  taken  a  place  among  great  theologians.  He  w^as 
a  sculptor  who  cut  with  matchless  grace  after  the  model  of  the 
master. 

For  the  absence  of  Luther  from  Augsburg,  the  reasons  con- 
stantly assigned  in  history  are  obviously  the  real  ones.  Luther 
was  not  only  under  the  Papal  excommunication,  Absence  of  lu- 
but  he  was  an  outlaw  under  the  imperial  ban.  In  ther from  au-s- 
the  rescript  of  the  Emperor  he  was  styled  "  the  ^"''^' 
evil  fiend  in  human  form,"  "  the  fool,"  and  "  the  blasphemer." 
Ilis  person  would  have  been  legally  subject  to  seizure.  The 
Diet  at  Spires  (1529)  had  repeated  the  Decree  of  Worms.  The 
Elector  would  have  looked  like  a  plotter  of  treason  had  Luther 
been  thrust  by  him  before  the  Emperor,  and  with  the  intense 
hatred  cherished  by  the  Papistical  party  toward  Luther,  he 
would  not  have  been  permitted  to  leave  Augsburg  alive.  The 
Elector  was  so  thoroughly  anxious  to  have  Luther  with  him, 
that  at  first  he  allowed  his  wishes  to  obscure  his  judgment,  — 
he  attached  such  importance  to  the  mild  language  of  Charles 
v.,  that  he  allowed  himself  to  hope,  yet,  as  his  letter  of  March 
14th  shows,  rather  feebly,  that  even  Luther  might  be  permit- 
ted to  appear.  Luther  left  Wittenberg  on  the  assumption 
that  he  perhaps  might  be  permitted  to  come  to  Augsburg. 
But  a  safe-conduct  was  denied  him.  Had  it  been  desired  by 
the  Elector  to  have  Luther  out  of  the  way,  it  would  have  been 
far  easier  to  the  Elector,  and  pleasanter  to  Luther,  to  have  kept 
him  at  Wittenberg. 

That  Luther  came  to  Coburg,  is  proof  of  the  ardent  desire 
to  have  his  counsel  and  co-operation ;  that  he  stopped  there, 
shows  the  greatness  of  the  peril  that  would  have  attended  his 
going  farther.  But  Luther's  safety  was  not  merely  provided 
for  by  his  detention  here,  but  by  placing  him  in  the  old  castle 
of  the  Duke  of  Coburg,  which  occupies  a  commanding  height, 
more  than  five  hundred  feet  above  the  town,  and  which  is  so 
well  fortified  b}^  nature  and  art,  that  during  the  Thirty  Years' 
War,   Wallenstein   besieged   it   in    vain.     The   arrangementa 


222  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 

were  planned  by  loving  friends  for  his  safety  :  Luther  perfectly 
understood  the  character  and  object  of  the  arrangements,  before 
they  \vere  made,  while  they  were  in  progress,  and  after  all  was 
over.  Thus,  April  2d,  writing  before  his  journey,  he  says :  "I 
am  going  with  the  Prince,  as  far  as  Coburg^  and  Melanchthon 
and  Jonas  with  us,  until  it  is  known  what  will  be  attempted 
at  Auo-sburo;."  In  another  letter  of  same  date:  "I  am  not 
summoned  to  go  to  Augsburg,  but  for  certain  reasons,  I  only 
accompany  the  Prince  on  his  journey  through  his  own  domin- 
ions." June  1,  he  writes:  ^' I  am  waiting  on  the  borders  of 
Saxony,  midway  between  Wittenberg  and  Augsburg,  for  it 
was  not  safe  to  take  me  to  Augsburg." 

The  expressions  of  impatience  which  we  find  in  his  letters 
during  his  stay  at  Coburg,  only  show  that  in  the  ardor  of  his 
great  soul,  in  moments  of  intense  excitement,  the  reasons  for 
his  detention  at  the  castle,  which  had  commended  themselves 
to  his  cooler  judgment,  seemed  reasons  no  longer  —  death 
seemed  nothins-  —  he  would  o-ladlv  face  it  as  he  had  faced  it 
before,  only  to  be  in  body  where  he  was  already  in  heart.  "  I 
burn,"  he  says,  "  to  come,  though  uncommanded  and  unin- 
vited." His  seeming  impatience,  his  agony,  his  desire  to  hear 
often,  his  refusal  for  the  moment  to  listen  to  any  excuses,  were 
all  inevitable  with  such  a  spirit  as  Luther's  under  the  cir- 
cumstances ;  yet  for  places  some  days'  journey  apart,  in  those 
troublous  times,  of  imperfect  communication,  with  special 
couriers  carrying  all  the  letters,  there  was  an  extraordinary 
amount  of  correspondence.  We  have  about  seventy  letters  of 
Luther  written  to  Augsburg  during  the  Diet,  and  we  know  of 
thirty-two  written  by  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  and  of  thirty- 
nine  written  by  Luther  to  Melanchthon  in  the  five  months  of 
correspondence,  during  the  Diet,  or  connected  with  it  in  the 
time  preceding.* 

Luther  and  Melanchthon  went  in  company  to  Coburg,  and  at 
Coburo^  the  "  Exordium  "  of  the  Confession  was 

Correspondence  .«.  t  Ariii  ^   • 

with  Luti.er.  Me-  writtcu.     At  Augsburg,  Melanchthon,  as  was  his 

l^May^^^"'"  wont,  elaborated  it  to  a  yet  higher  finish.     May 

4,  he  writes  to  Luther:  "I  have  made  the  exor- 

*  Luther's  Letters,  De  Wette's  e'l.,  Hi.  iv. 


THE  ELECTOR'S  LETTERS.  223 

dium  of  oiir  Apology  somewhat  more  finished  in  style  (reto- 
rikoteron)  than  I  wrote  it  at  Cohurg."  Speaking  of  his  work 
he  says :  "  In  a  short  time,  /  myself  will  bring  it^  or  if  the 
Prince  will  not  permit  me  to  come,  I  will  send  it.'^ 

By  the  Apology  or  Defence  is  meant  the  Confession,  which 
was  originally  designed  to  he  in  the  main  a  defence  of  the 
Evangelical  (Lutheran)  Confessors,  especially  in  regard  to  their 
practical  application  of  their  principles  in  the  correction  of 
abuses.  The  second  part  was  the  one  which  at  the  time  of  the 
preparation  of  the  Confession  was  regarded  as  the  more  difficult, 
and  for  the  immediate  objects  contemplated,  the  more  import- 
ant. The  articles  of  faith  were  designed  as  a  preparation  for 
the  second  part,  and  the  judgment  of  Foerstemann  and  others 
that  by  the  "  Exordium,"  Melanchthon  meant  not  the  Preface, 
which  there  seems  to  be  evidence  was  written  in  German  by 
Briick,  and  translated  into  Latin  by  Jonas,  "  but  the  whole 
first  part  of  the  Confession,  is  not  without  much  to  render  it 
probable." 

If  we  take  Melanchthon's  language,  in  his  letter  of  May  5, 
grammatically,  it  seems  to  settle  it,  that  the  Exordium  was  the 
whole  first  part,  for  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  would  desire  to 
come  all  the  w^ay  to  Coburg  to  show  Luther  merely  the  Pre- 
face, more  especially  as  we  know  that  the  Confession  itself  was 
nearly  finished  at  the  time.  In  a  letter  of  the  same  date,  (May 
4th,)  to  Yiet  Dietrich,  who  was  with  Luther,  he  says :  "  I  will 
shortly  run  over  to  you,  that  I  may  bring  to  the  Doctor 
(Luther)  the  Apology  which  is  to  be  oflfered  to  the  Emperor, 
that  he  (Luther)  may  examine  it." 

For  very  obvious  reasons,  Melanchthon  could  not  be  spared 

from  Augsburg  at  this  time  even  for  an  hour,  to     y,^^,  Eiect-.r-s 

say  nothino;  of  the  hazards  which  mio-ht  have  been   f-"'"  <^f  ^Kv 

•^  ^  ,     ^  .  nth. 

incurred  by  the  journey,  which  his  great  anxiety 

for  a  personal  conference  with  Luther  inclined  him  to  make. 

But  on  May  11th,  the   Elector  sent  to  Luther  the  Confession, 

with  a  letter,  in  which  he  speaks  of  it  as  meant  to  be  a  careful 

revision  of  those  very  articles  of  which  Luther  was  the  main 

author.     He  says  to  Luther  (Augsburg,  May  11th) :  "  As  you 


224  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  our  other  theologians  at  Wittenberg,  have  brought  into 
summary  statement  the  articles  of  religion  about  which  there 
is  dispute,  it  is  our  wish  to  let  you  know  that  Melanchthon  has 
further  revised  the  same,  and  reduced  them  to  a  form,  which 
we  hereby  send  you."  "  And  it  is  our  desire  that  you  would 
further  revise  the  same,  and  give  them  a  thorough  examination^ 
and  at  the  same  time  (daneben)  you  would  also  write  how  you 
like  it,  or  what  you  think  proper  to  add  about  it  or  to  it,  and 
in  order  that,  on  his  Majesty's  arrival,  which  is  looked  for  in  a 
short  time,  we  may  be  ready,  send  back  the  same  carefully 
secured  and  sealed,  without  delay,  to  this  place,  by  the  letter- 
carrier  who  takes  this." 

Luther  had  been  the  chief  laborer  in  the  articles  of  w^hich 
the  Elector  declared  the  Confession  to  be  but  a  revision  and  re- 
ducing to  shape  —  there  could  be  little  room  for  large  changes, 
and  as  the  Emperor  was  expected  speedily,  the  time  was  too 
pressing  to  allow  of  elaborate  discussions,  which  were  indeed 
unneeded  where  all  were  so  absolute  a  unit  in  faith  as  our  Con- 
fessors were.  That  margin  would  have  been  narrow,  and  that 
time  short,  indeed,  on  which  and  in  which  Luther  could  not 
have  written  enough  to  kill  any  Confession  which  tampered 
with  the  truth. 

The  Elector's  whole  letter  expressly  assigns  the  natural  and 
cogent  reason,  that  Luther's  judgment  might  be  needed  at 
once,  in  consequence  of  the  expected  advent  of  the  Emperor,  a 
point  which  Melanchthon's  letter  of  the  same  date  also  urges. 
The  haste  is  evidence  of  the  anxiety  to  have  Luther's  opinion 
and  approval,  as  a  sine  qua  non. 

The  Diet  had  been  summoned  for  April  8th.  It  was  soon 
after  postponed  to  the  1st  of  May,  and  at  this  later  date,  had 
it  not  been  for  the  delay  of  the  Emperor  in  appearing,  the  arti- 
cles of  Luther,  on  which  the  Confession  was  afterwards  based, 
would  themselves  have  been  offered.  As  it  was,  it  was  need- 
ful to  be  ready  at  any  hour  for  the  approach  of  Charles.  The 
letter  of  tlie  Elector  implies  that  the  original  of  the  Confession 
w^as  sent  to  Luther.  Great  care  was  taken  to  prevent  copies 
from  being  multiplied,  as  the  enemies  were  eager  to  see  it. 
Even  on  June  25th,  the  day  of  its  presentation,  the  Latin  Con- 


MELANCIITIION'S   LETTER.  225 

fession,  in  Melanchthon's  own  handwriting,  was  given  to  the 
Emperor. 

With  this  letter  of  the  Elector  was  sent  a  letter  from 
Melanchthon  addressed  "to  Martin  Luther,  his  Meianch.i.on'. 
most  dear  father."  In  it  he  says:  "Our  Apology  '^^^tj-r  '^f  M'o- 
is  sent  to  you,  although  it  is  more  properly  a  Con- 
fession, for  the  Emperor  will  have  no  time  for  protracted  dis- 
cussion. Nevertheless,  I  have  said  those  things  which  1 
thought  most  prolitahle  or  fitting.  With  this  design  I  have 
embraced  nearly  all  the  articles  of  faith,  for  Eck  has  put  forth 
the  most  diabolical  slanders  against  us,  to  which  I  wished  .to 
oppose  a  remedy.  I  request  you,  in  accordance  with  your  own 
spirit,  to  decide  concerning  the  whole  writing  [Pro  tuo  sjnritu 
de  toto  scripto  statues.)  A.  question  is  referred  to  you.,  to  which 
I  greatly  desire  an  answer  from  you.  What  if  the  Emperor 
.  .  should  prohibit  our  ministers  from  preaching  at  Augsburg? 
I  have  answered  that  we  should  yield  to  the  wish  of  the  Em- 
peror, in  whose  city  we  are  guests.  But  our  old  man  is  diffi- 
cult to  soften."  (The  "  old  man  "  is  either  the  Elector  John, 
so  called  to  distinguish  him  from  his  son,  John  Frederick,  or 
the  old  Chancellor  Briick.)  "  Whatever  therefore  you  think, 
I  beg  that  you  will  write  it  in  German  on  sejmrate  paper.'' 

What  Luther  was  to  write  was  his  judgment  both  as  to  the 
Confession  and  the  question  about  preaching,  and  the  "  sepa- 
rate paper,"  on  which  he  was  particularly  requested  to  write, 
must  mean  separate  from  that  which  held  the  Confession.  One 
probable  reason  why  Luther  was  so  particularly  requested  not, 
as  was  very  much  his  wont,  to  write  upon  the  margin,  was, 
that  this  original  draft  of  the  Confession  might  have  been 
needed  for  presentation  to  the  Emperor.  The  original  of  Lu- 
ther's replies  to  the  Elector  on  both  points  (for  to  the  Elector 
and  not  to  Melanchthon  they  were  to  be  made,  and  were  made,) 
still  remains.  Both  are  tog-ether  —  neither  is  on  the  margin 
of  anything,  but  both  are  written  just  as  Melanchthon  specially 
requested,  "  in  German,"  and  on  "  separate  paper."  *     It  shows 

*  Coelestinus,  i.,  p.  40.     Luther's  Epistol.  supplem.  Buddei,  93.    Salig.  Hist.  d. 
Aug.  Conf.,  i.  169.     Cyprian, Beylage  xiv.  Ex  Autographo.     Luther's  Briefer  De 
Wette  (Lett.  1213)  himself  compared  the  original  in  the  Weimar  Archives. 
15 


22G  COXSERVATIVE    BE  FOR  MAT  I  OX. 

the  intensest  desire  to  have  the  assurance  doubly  sure  of  La- 
ther's concurrence,  that  under  all  the  pressure  of  haste,  the 
ori2:inal  of  the  Confession  was  sent  him. 

That  the  highest  importance  was  attached  to  Luther's  judg- 
ment on  this  form  of  the  Confession,  is  furthermore  proved  hy 
the  fact  that  after  the  Confession  was  despatched,  (May  11,) 
everything  loas  suspended  at  Augshurfj^  till  he  should  be  heard 
from.  "On  the  16th  of  May,  the  Elector  indicated  to  the 
other  States,  that  the  Confession  was  ready,  but  was  not  entirely 
closed  up,  but  had  been  sent  to  Luther  for  examination." 
Shortly  after,  Luther's  reply  of  May  15,  heartily  indorsing  the 
Confession,  without  the  change  of  a  word,  was  received  at 
Augsburg.* 

It  is  called  '^form  of  Confession,"  in  the  Elector's  letter  to 
Luther,  because  the  matter  of  the  Confession  had  been  prepared 
by  Luther  himself.  Melanchthon's  work  was  but  to  revise  that 
matter,  and  give  it  "  form,"  w^hich  revised  form  was  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  examination  of  all  the  Lutheran  authorities  and 
divines  at  Augsburg,  and  especially  to  Luther. 

As  to  the  articles  of  faith,  and  the  abuses  to  be  corrected, 
the  matter  of  the  Confession  was  already  finished  and  furnished 
—  much  of  it  direct  from  Luther's  hand,  and  all  of  it  with  his 
tjo-operation  and  approval.  It  was  only  as  to  the  "  form,"  the 
selection  among  various  abuses,  the  greater  or  less  amplitude 
of  treatment,  that  all  the  questions  lay.  The  "form  of  Con- 
fession "  sent  on  May  11th  was  the  Augsburg  Confession,  sub- 
stantially identical  with  it  as  a  whole,  and,  in  all  that  is  really 
essential  to  it,  verbally  identical.  We  have  copies  of  it  so 
nearly  at  the  stage  at  which  it  then  was  as  to  know  that  this 
is  the  case.  Melanchthon's  letter  expressly  declares  that  nearly 
all  the  articles  of  faith  had  been  treated,  and  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  in  its  most  finished  shape,  only  professes  to  give 
"  about  the  sum  of  the  doctrines  held  by  us." 

But  we  need  not  rest  in  inferences,  however  strong,  in  regard 
to  this  matter.  We  have  direct  evidence  from  Melanchthon 
himself,  which  will  be  produced,  that  Luther  did  decide,  before 
its  presentation,  upon  what,  in  Melanchthon's  judgment,  was 

*  Corpus  Reform.,  Xo.  700.     Kbllner,  pp.  171.  17-3, 


MELANCHTHON'S  LETTER.  '  227 

the  Augsburg  Confession  itself.  His  words  prove  that  the 
changes  which  Luther  did  not  see  were  purely  those  of  niceties 
of  style,  or  of  a  more  ample  elaboration  of  a  very  few  points, 
mainly  on  the  abuses  ;  in  fact,  that  Luther's  approval  had  l)cen 
given  to  the  Confession,  and  that  w^ithout  it  the  Confession 
never  would  have  been  presented. 

The  Elector's  letter  of  May  11th  was  answered  by  Luther, 
who  heartily  indorsed  the  Confession  sent  him,  without  the 
change  of  a  word.  N'othing  was  taken  out,  nothing  w^as  added, 
nothing  w^as  altered.  He  speaks  admiringly,  not  reprovingly, 
of  the  moderation  of  its  style,  and  confesses  that  it  had  a  gen- 
tleness of  manner  of  which  he  was  not  master. 

As  the  Emperor  still  lingered,  Melanchthon  used  the  time  to 
improve,  here  and  there,  the  external  form  of  the  Confession. 
He  loved  the  most  exquisite  accuracy  and  delicacy  of  phrase, 
and  never  ceased  filing  on  his  Avork.  What  topics  should  be 
handled  under  the  head  of  abuses,  was  in  the  main  perfectly 
understood,  and  agreed  upon  betw^een  him  and  Luther.  The 
draft  of  the  discussion  of  them  was  largely  from  Luther's 
hand,  and  all  of  it  was  indorsed  by  him. 

The  main  matters  were  entirely  settled,  the  principles  were 
fixed,  and  the  questions  which  arose  were  those  of  style,  of 
selection  of  topics,  of  the  mode  of  treating  them,  or  of  expedi- 
ency, in  which  the  faith  w^as  not  involved.  In  regard  to  this, 
Luther  speedily  hears  again  from  his  son  in  the  Gospel. 

May  22d,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther  :  ^  "In  the  Apol- 
ogy, we  daily  change  many  things  ;  the  article  on  Yows,  as  it 
w^as  more  meagre  than  it  should  be,  I  have  re-  Melanchthon  s 
moved,  and  supplied  its  place  with  a  discussion  a  Letter  of  May  22. 
little  more  full,  on  the  same  point.  I  am  now  treating  of  the 
power  of  the  keys  also.  I  w^ish  you  would  run  over  the 
Articles  of  Eaith  ;  if  you  think  there  is  no  defect  in  them,  we 
will  treat  of  the  other  points  as  we  best  may  {utcunque.)  For 
they  are  to  be  changed  from  time  to  time,  and  adapted  to  the 
-circumstances."  In  the  same  letter  he  begs  Luther  to  write  to 
George,  Duke  of  Saxony,  because  his  letter  would  carry  deci- 
sive weight  with  him  :  "  there  is  need  of  your  letters." 

*  Corpus  Reformatorum,  ii.  Epist.,  No.  680. 


228  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

This  letter  shows : 

1.  That  Melanchthon  desired  Luther  to  know  all  that  he 
w\as  doing. 

2.  That  the  Articles  of  Faith  were  finished,  and  that  the 
changes  were  confined  to  the  Articles  on  Abuses. 

3.  That  in  the  discussions  on  Abuses,  there  were  many  ques- 
tions which  would  have  to  be  decided  as  the  occasions,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  would  determine  theu^ 

From  three  to  four  days  seems  to  have  been  the  ordinary 
time  of  the  letter-carrier  between  Augsburg  and  Coburg.  The 
Elector  sent  the  Confession  May  11th.  Luther  replied  May 
15th,  probably  the  very  day  he  received  it ;  his  reply  probably 
reached  Augsburg  May  20th,  and  tw^o  days  after,  Melanchthon 
sends  him  the  Articles  of  Faith,  with  the  elaboration  which 
had  taken  place  in  the  interval,  and  informs  him  of  what  he 
had  been  doing,  and  designs  to  do. 

In  part,  on  the  assumption  that  Luther  was  not  permitted 
to  receive  this  letter,  a  theory  w^as  built  by  Eiickert,  a  Ration- 
alistic writer  of  Germany,  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  was 
meant  to  be  a  compromise  with  Rome,  and  that  it  was  feared 
that  if  Luther  were  not  kept  in  the  dark  he  would  spoil  the 
scheme.  But  even  if  Luther  did  not  receive  Melanchthon 's 
letter  and  the  Articles  of  May  22d,  we  deny  that  the  rational 
solution  would  be  that  they  were  fraudulently  held  back  by 
the  friends  of  the  Confession  at  Augsburg.  Grant  that  Lu- 
ther never  received  them.  What  then  ?  The  retention  of  them 
would  have  been  an  act  of  flagrant  immorality  ;  it  was  need- 
less, and  foolish,  and  hazardous  ;  it  is  in  conflict  w^ith  the  per- 
sonal character  of  the  great  princes  and  leaders,  political  and 
theological,  who  were  as  little  disposed  as  Luther,  to  compro- 
mise any  principle  wdth  Rome.  The  Elector  and  Briick  were 
on  some  points  less  disposed  to  be  yielding  than  Luther.  The 
theory  is  contradicted  by  the  great  body  of  fixcts,  which  show 
that  Luther,  though  absent  in  body,  was  the  controlling  spirit 
at  Augsburg.  It  is  contradicted  by  the  Confession  itself, 
w^hiclr  is  a  presentation,  calm  in  manner,  but  mighty  in  the 
matter,  in  which  it  overthrows  Popery  from  the  very  founda- 
tion.    It  is  contradicted  by  the  fierce  replies  of  the  Papists  in 


MELANCHTIION'S  LETTER.  229 

the  Council,  by  the  assaults  of  Popery  upon  it  through  all  time, 
by  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  whose  main  polemical 
reference  is  to  it.  It  is  contradicted  by  the  enthusiastic  admi- 
ration which  Luther  felt,  and  expressed  again  and  again,  for 
the  Confession. 

The  millions  of  our  purified  churches  bave  justly  regarded 
it  for  ages  as  the  great  bulwark  against  Rome,  and  the  judg- 
ment of  the  whole  Protestant  world  has  been  a  unit  as  to 
its  fundamentally  Evangelical  and  Scriptural  character  over 
ao-ainst  Rome.  Its  greatest  defenders  have  been  the  most  able 
assailants  of  Popery. 

It  might  as  well  be  assumed  that  the  Bible  is  a  compromise 
with  the  Devil,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  excluded  from 
aiding  in  its  production,  lest  he  should  embarrass  the  proceed- 
ings, as  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  is,  or  was  meant  to  be, 
a  compromise  with  Popery,  and  that  Luther  was  consequently 
prevented  from  having  a  share  in  producing  it. 

If  the  letter  really  never  reached  Luther,  the  theory  that  it 
was  fraudulently  kept  at  Augsburg  by  the  friends  of  the  Con- 
fession, that  the  whole  thing  was  one  of  the  meanest,  and  at 
the  same  time,  most  useless  crimes  ever  committed,  is  so  ex- 
treme, involves  such  base  wickedness  on  the  part  of  its  perpe- 
trators, that  nothing  but  the  strongest  evidences  or  the  most 
overwhelming  presumptions  justify  a  man  in  thinking  such  an 
explanation  possible. 

If  this  letter,  or  others,  never  reached  Luther,  it  is  to  be 
attributed  either  to  the  imperfect  mode  of  transmission,  in 
which  letters  were  lost,  miscarried,  or  destroyed  by  careless  or 
fraudulent  carriers,  of  which  bitter  complaints  constantly  occur 
in  the  letters  of  Luther  and  others  at  that  time,  or  if  there 
w^ere  any  steps  taken  to  prevent  Luther's  letters  reaching  him, 
these  steps  would  be  taken  by  the  Romanists,  who  were  now 
gathering  in  increasing  force  at  Augsburg.  The  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  communicating  with  Luther  increased,  as  his  being 
at  Coburg  was  kept  secret  from  his  enemies,  and  at  his  request, 
in  a  letter  which  we  shall  quote,  was  kept  secret  in  June  even 
from  the  body  of  his  friends. 

So  much  for  the  theory,  granting  its  fact  for  argument's  sake. 


230  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

But  the  fact  is  that  Luther  did  receive  Melaiichthon's  letter 
of  the  22d.  The  letter  was  not  lost,  but  appears  in  all  the 
editions  of  Melanclithon's  letters,  entire,^^  and  in  the  earliest 
histories  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  without  a  hint,  from  the 
beginning  up  to  Ruckert's  time,  that  it  had  not  been  received. 
When  we  turn  to  Luther's  letters,  complaining  of  the  silence 
of  his  friends,  we  find  no  evidence  that  Melanchthon's  letter 
had  not  been  received.  They  create,  on  the  contrary,  the 
strongest  presumption  that  it  had  been  received.  As  it  was 
sent  at  once,  (Melanchthon  says  that  he  had  hired  a  letter-car- 
rier before  he  began  the  letter,)  it  would  reach  Luther  about 
May  25th. 

Luther's  letter  of  June  1st  to  Jacob  Probst,  in  Bremen, f 
shows  that  he  had  intellio-ence  of  the  most  recent  date  from 
Augsburg,  that  he  was  sharing  in  the  cares  and  responsibilities 
of  what  was  then  passing  :  "  Here,  also,  I  am  occupied  with 
business  for  God,  and  the  burden  of  the  wdiole  empire  rests 
upon  us. "  He  then  uses,  in  part,  the  very  language  of  Melanch- 
thon's  letter  of  May  22d,  as  to  the  time  when  the  Emperor 
would  be  at  Augsburg.:):  He  quotes  from  that  letter  Melanch- 
thon's  very  words  in  regard  to  Mercurinus  :  §  '•  He  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  violent  councils  —  that  it  had  appeared  at 
"Worms  what  violent  councils  would  do.  He  desired  the 
affairs  of  the  Church  to  be  peacefully  arranged."  He  closes 
his  account  of  things  at  Augsburg  by  saying :  "  You  have  an 
account  of  matters  now  as  they  are  to-day  at  Augsburg  "  [hodie 
habet.) 

Luther  did  receive  Melanchthon's  letter  of  the  22d,  and  on 
June  1st  quotes  largely  from  it. 

Up  to  this  time,  too,  there  is  no  complaint  of  suspension  of 

*In  tlie  original  Latin,  in  Corpus  Reform.,  ii.,  Mo.  COS.  In  German,  in  Walch's 
Luthers  Werke,  xvi.,  No.  927. 

t  Dc  Wette's  Briefe,  No.  1217.     Bucldeus,  Suppl.,  No.  123. 

J  Melanchthon  :  vix  ante  Pentecosten.     Luther:  forte  ad  Peutecosten. 

^  Melanc.  :  Nolle  se  violentis  consiliis  interesse.  Luth.:  Se  nolle  interesse 
violentis  consiliis.  Mel.  :  Wormatiae  apparuisse,  quara  nihil  proficiant  violenta 
consilia.  Luth.  :  Wormatiae  vidisset,  quid  efficerent  violenta  consilia.  Mel. : 
Vir  summus  Mercurinus.  Luth.  ;  Summus  Mercurinus.  Mel.  :  Res  ecclesias- 
ticae  rite  constituerentur.     Luth.  :  Ecclesine  res  cum  pace  constitui. 


MELANCIITHON'S  LETTER.  231 

communication  with  Augsburg,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  re- 
ports up  to  the  day  on  which  he  writes. 

On  June  2d,  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon."^  There  is  no 
word  of  complaint  in  this  letter  of  any  silence  on  the  part  of 
Melanchthon,  or  of  others  at  Augsburg.  lie  complains  that 
he  is  so  overrun  with  visitors  as  to  be  compelled  to  leave  Co- 
bur  c>-  for  a  day,  to  create  the  impression  that  he  is  no  longer 
there.  "  I  beg  of  you,  and  the  others  with  you,  in  future  to 
speak  and  write  so  that  no  one  will  seek  me  here  any  longer ; 
for  I  ivish  to  remain  concealed^  and  to  have  you,  at  the  same 
time,  to  keep  me  concealed,  both  in  your  words  and  letters.'' 
He  then  speaks  of  the  report  that  the  Emperor  would  not  come 
to  Augsburg  at  all,  and  of  his  deep  anxiety.  This  letter  shows 
what  Avas  the  subject  of  Luther's  intense  solicitude  on  the  fol- 
lowing days.  A  thousand  alarming  rumors  reached  him,  and 
he  was  anxious  to  hear,  by  every  possible  opportunity,  from 
Augsburg ;  at  the  same  time,  wishing  to  be  concealed,  he  had 
requested  Melanchthon  and  his  other  friends  to  avoid  sending 
letters  in  a  way  that  would  make  it  known  that  he  was  at  Co- 
burg.  These  tw^o  facts  help  to  solve  Luther's  great  solicitude 
to  hear  news,  and  also,  in  part,  as  we  have  said,  to  account  for 
the  irregularity  in  his  receiving  letters,  as  they  w^ould,  in 
accordance  with  his  direction  of  Jane  2d,  be  sent  with  secrecy. 
Li  Luther's  letter  of  June  5th,  he  complains  not  that  there 
had  been  a  long  delay,  but  that  they  did  not  write  by  every 
opportunity.  These  were  sometimes  quite  frequent.  In  some 
cases  more  than  one  opportunity  occurred  in  a  day.  Xone  of 
Luther's  anxiety  is  about  the  Confession.  In  Luther's  letter 
to  Melanchthon,  of  June  7th,  he  complains  of  the  silence  of  his 
friends  at  Augsburg,  but  in  a  jplayfal  tone.  In  his  letter  of 
June  19th,  to  Cordatus,t  he  says:  ''We  have  no  news  from 
Augsburg.  Our  friends  at  Augsburg  w^rite  us  none."  In  his 
letter  to  Gabriel  Zwilling,:t  June  19th,  he  says  :  "  You  will, 
perhaps,  get  the  neios  from  Bernhard,  for  our  friends  have  not 

*  De  Wette,  Briefe,  No.   1219.     Buddeus,  No.  124.     la  German,   Walch  xvi.,  p. 
2826. 

f  De  Wette,Briefe,  No.  1229.     Buddeus,  No.  125.     Walch  xvi.  2833. 
Buddeus.  No.  126.     Walch  xvi.  2836. 


232  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIO JN. 

answered  our  letters  through  the  whole  month,"  (June.)  La- 
ther's letter  of  Jane  20//^  to  Justus  Jonas,- gives  direct  evi- 
dence how  long  the  interruption  of  correspondence  continued: 
''  Your  letters  have  come  at  last,  my  Jonas,  after  w^e  were  well 
fretted  for  three  ichole  iceeks  with  your  silence."  The  period, 
therefore,  does  not  embrace  May  22d,  but  only  the  first  three 
weeks  in  June.  There  is  no  reason  wdiatever,  therefore,  for 
doubting  that  Luther  received  Melanchthon's  letter,  and  the 
Articles  of  Faith  of  May  22d.  On  June  1st,  the  Elector,  John, 
sent  Luther  secret  advices  of  an  important  proposition  which 
he  had  received  from  the  Emperor.  If,  therefore,  there  were 
any  furtive  and  dishonorable  course  pursued  toward  Luther, 
the  causes  and  results  of  it  must,  in  some  special  manner,  be 
found  between  the  Elector's  secret  advices  of  June  1st  and  the 
letter  to  Luther  from  Augsburg,  June  15th  ;  but  there  is 
nothing  in  the  course  of  events  to  suggest  any  such  reason, 
even  if  there  were  a  fact  which  seemed  to  require  something  of 
the  sort  —  but  there  is  no  such  fact.  On  the  contrary,  we  shall 
produce  a  fact  which  will  sweep  away  all  necessity  for  any  fur- 
ther discussion  of  this  point. 

AYe  have  seen,  1st,  that  the  Confession  was  sent  by  the 
Elector,  May  11th,  to  Luther,  at  Coburg,  for  his  written  judg- 
ment upon  it,  in  its  Jirst  form, 

2d.  That  it  was  sent  again,  on  the  22d  of  the  same  month, 
by  Melanchthon,  and  w^as  received  by  Luther,  in  its  second 
form. 

3d.  AVe  shall  now  show  that  it  was  sent  as  nearly  as  possible 
in  its  complete  shape  to  Luther,  for  a  third  time,  before  it  was 
delivered,  and  w^as  approved  by  him  in  what  may  probably  be 
called  its  f  rial  form. 

The  evidence  to  which  we  shall  appeal  is  that  of  Melanch- 
thon himself.  It  is  first  found  in  the  Preface  to  his  Body  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  (Corpus  Doctrinrc,)  1560,  and  also  in  the 
Preface  to  the  first  volume  of  the  AVittenberg  edition  of  his 
works  in  folio.  It  is  reprinted  in  the  Corpus  Keformatorum, 
vol.  ix.,Xo.  G932.  lie  there  says,  in  giving  a  history  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession : 

*  De  Wette,  No.  1232.     Buddeus,  No.  127. 


MELANCIITIION'S  LETTER.  233 

1.  "  I  brought  together  the  principal  points  of  the  Confes- 
sion, eml)racing  pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the  doctrine  of  our 
Churches." 

II.  "  I  assumed  nothing  to  myself,  for  in  the  presence  of  the 
Princes  and  other  officials,  and  of  the  preachers,  it  was  discussed 
and  determined  upon  in  regular  course,  sentence  by  sentence." 

III.  "  The  complete  form  of  the  Confession  was  subsequently 
(deinde)  sent  to  Luther,  who  wrote  to  the  Princes  that  he  had 
read  the  Confession  and  approved  it.  That  these  things  were 
so  done,  the  Princes,  and  other  honest  and  learned  men,  yet 
living.)  well  remember." 

IV.  "  After  this  {postea.,)  before  the  Emperor  Charles,  in  a 
great  assemblage  of  the  Princes,  this  Confession  was  read." 

This  extract  shows,  1,  that  this  complete  Confession  —  the 
tota  forma  —  the  Articles  on  Doctrines  and  Abuses,  as  con- 
trasted with  any  earlier  and  imperfect  form  of  the  Confession, 
was  submitted  to  Luther. 

2.  This  is  wholly  distinct  from  Luther's  indorsement  of  the 
Confession  as  sent  May  11th,  for  that  was  not  the  "  tota  fo?ina,'' 
but  relatively  unfinished ;  that  had  not  been  discussed  before 
Princes,  officials,  and  preachers,  for  they  were  not  yet  at  Augs- 
buro-.  Nor  was  it  then  meant  that  the  Confession  should  be 
made  in  the  name  of  all  the  Evangelical  States.  It  was  to  be 
limited  to  Saxony.  Luther's  reply  to  the  letter  of  May  11th 
w^as  not  to  the  Princes,  but  to  John  alone.  Up  to  May  11th, 
the  Elector  (with  his  suite)  was  the  only  one  of  the  Princes  at 
Augsburg.  On  the  12th,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  came  ;  on 
the  15th  the  Nurembergers.  I^ot  until  after  May  22d  did 
that  conference  and  discussion  take  place,  of  which  Melancb- 
thon  speaks.  After  the  whole  form  of  the  Confession  had  been 
decided  upon,  it  w^as  sent  to  Luther,  received  his  final  indorse- 
ment, and  was  presented  to  Charles.  This  complete  form  was 
identical  in  matter  with  the  Confession  as  exhibited,  although 
verbal  changes  were  made  by  Melanchthon  up  to  the  very  time 
of  its  delivery. 

On  Luther's  opinion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.,  we  propose 
to  let  Luther  speak  for  himself. 

1.  1530,  May  15.     In  Luther's  reply  to  the  Elector,  he  says ; 


234  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

"I  have  read  the  Apology  (Confession,)  of  Philip,  from  Degm- 

ning  to  end  ;  it  pleases  me  exceedingly  well,  and  I  know  of 

nothing  by  which  I  could  better  it,  or  change  it,  nor  would  I 

T  ,,    ,      .be  fitted  to  do  it,  for  I  cannot  move  so  moderately 

Luther's   opin-  '  ^ 

iou  oftbeAugs-  and  gently.     May  Christ  our  Lord  help,  that  it 
uig   on  esMon.  ^^^^  \)Ymg  forth  mucli  and  great  fruit,  as  we  hope 
and  pray.     Amen."* 

These  words  of  admiration  for  Melanchthon's  great  gifts, 
came  from  Luther's  inmost  heart.  Less  th^n  six  months  before 
he  had  written  to  Jonas :  f  "  All  the  Jeromes,  Hillarys,  and 
Macariuses  together,  are  not  worthy  to  unloose  the  thong  of 
Philip's  sandal.  AYhat  have  the  whole  of  them  together  done 
which  can  be  compared  with  one  year  of  Philip's  teaching,  or 
to  his  one  book  of  Common  Places  ?  "  Had  Luther  been  at 
Augsburg,  he  would  have  allowed  the  work  of  finishing  "  the 
foTfii  of  the  Confession"  to  be  given  to  no  other  hands  than 
]\Ielanchthon's.  "  I  prefer,"  he  says,  ''  Melanchthon's  books  to 
my  own,  and  would  rather  have  them  circulated  than  mine. 
I  was  born  to  battle  with  conspirators  and  devils,  therefore  my 
books  are  more  vehement  and  warlike.  It  is  my  work  to  tear 
up  the  stumps  and  dead  roots,  to  cut  away  the  thorns,  to  fill 
up  the  marshes,  f  am  the  rough  forester  and  pioneer.  But 
Melanchthon  moves  gently  and  calmly  along,  with  his  rich 
gifts  from  God's  own  hand,  building  and  planting,  sowing  and 
watering.":]: 

2.  Between  June  8th  and  25th,  we  have  Melanchthon's  clec- 
laration,citedin  our  former  extracts,  as  to  Luther's  approval  of 
the  Confession  in  the  form  it  took  after  the  discussion. 

3.  June  3d.  Luther  to  Melanchthon  :  "  I  yesterday  re-read 
your  Apolog}^  entire,  with  care  (cliligenter^)  and  it  pleases  me 
exceedingly."  § 

4.  July  6th,  to  Hausman :  1  he  speaks  lovingly  of  "  our  Con- 
fession which  our  Philip  hath  prepared." 

^^  Luther's  Briefe,  De  Wette,  1213,  WalcU  xvi,  785.  In  Latin:  Coelestinus  i, 
40,  Buddeus  93.     In  French  :  (Le  Cop's)  Chytraeus,  p.  29. 

f  Buddeus,  No.  100,  %  Pref.  to  Mehinchthon  on  Colossians. 

^  In  Latin  :  De  Wette,  No.  1243,  Buddeus,  No.  137.  German  :  Walch  xvi, 
1082. 

Ij  De  Wette,  No.  1245. 


LUTHER'S  OPINION.  235 

5.  July  6,  to  Cordatus :  ^  "  The  Coiifession  of  ours  was  read 
before  the  whole  empire.  I  am  glad  exceedingly  to  have  lived 
to  this  hour,  in  which  Christ  through  his  so  great  Confessors, 
in  so  great  an  Assemhly,  has  been  preached  in  so  glorious  a 
Confession,  and  that  word  has  been  fulfilled  :  '  I  will  speak  of 
thy  testimonies  in  the  presence  of  kings,'  and  this  also  has  been 
fulfilled :  '  and  shall  not  be  ashamed,'  for  '  him  who  confesseth 
me  before  men '  (it  is  the  word  of  him  who  cannot  lie,)  'I  also 
will  confess  before  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.'  " 

6.  July  6,  to  the  Cardinal  Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mentz, 
Primate  of  Germany  :  f  "  Your  Highness,  as  well  as  the  other 
orders  of  the  empire,  has  doubtless  read  the  Confession,  deliv- 
ered by  ours,  which  I  am  persuaded  is  so  composed,  that  with 
joyous  lips  it  may  say  with  Christ :  '  If  I  have  spoken  evil, 
bear  witness  of  the  evil ;  but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  me?' 
It  shuns  not  the  light,  and  can  sing  with  the  Psalmist :  'I  will 
speak  of  thy  testimonies  before  kings,  and  will  not  be  ashamed.' 
But  I  can  well  conceive  that  our  adversaries  will  by  no  means 
accept  the  doctrine,  but  much  less  are  they  able  to  confute  it. 
I  have  no  hope  whatever  that  we  can  agree  in  doctrine ;  for 
their  cause  cannot  bear  the  light.  Such  is  their  bitterness,  ■ 
wdth  such  hatred  are  they  kindled,  that  they  would  endure 
hell  itself  rather  than  yield  to  us,  and  relinquish  their  new  wis- 
dom. I  know  that  this  our  doctrine  is  true,  and  grounded  in 
the  holy  Scriptures.  By  this  Confession  we  clearly  testify  and 
demonstrate  that  we  have  not  taught  wrongly  or  falsely." 

7.  July  9,  to  Duke  John,  Elector  of  Saxony  :  X  '*  Our  adver- 
saries thought  they  had  gained  a  great  point  in  having  the 
preaching  interdicted  by  the  Emperor,  but  the  infatuated  men 
did  not  see  that  by  this  written  Confession,  which  was  ofifered 
to  the  Emperor,  this  doctrine  was  more  preached,  and  more 
widely  propagated,  than  ten  preachers  could  have  done  it.  It 
was  a  fine  point  that  our  preachers  were  silenced,  but  in  their 
stead  came  forth  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  other  princes  and 
lords,  with  the  written  Confession,  and  preached  freely  in  sight 

*  De  Wette,  1246.     Walch  xvi,  1083. 

f  De  Wette,  No.  1247.     Walch  xvi,  1085.     In  Latin  :  Buddeus,  No.  139. 

+  De  Wette,  No.  1050.     Walch  xvi,  969.     Latin  :  Buddeus,  No.  142. 


236  CONSERVATIVE   E  E  FOR  MAT  I  ON. 

of  all,  before  the  Emperor  and  the  whole  empire.  Christ  surely 
was  not  silenced  at  the  Diet,  and  mad  as  they  were,  they  were 
compelled  to  hear  more  from  the  Confession,  than  they  would 
have  heard  from  the  preachers  in  a  year.  Paul's  declaration 
was  fulfilled  :  '  The  word  of  God  is  not  bound  : '  silenced  in  the 
pulpit,  it  was  heard  in  the  palace ;  the  poor  preachers  were  not 
allowed  to  open  their  lips  —  but  great  princes  and  lords  spoke 
it  forth." 

8.  July  9,  to  Jonas:*  "There  will  never  be  agreement 
concerning  doctrine  "  (between  the  Evangelical  and  Romish 
Churches,)  "  for  how  can  Christ  and  Belial  be  in  concord  ? 
But  the  first  thing,  and  that  the  greatest  at  this  Council  has 
been,  that  Christ  has  been  proclaimed  in  a  public  and  glorious 
Confession  ;  he  has  been  confessed  in  the  light  and  to  their  face, 
so  that  they  cannot  boast  that  we  fled,  or  that  we  feared,  or 
concealed  our  faith.  My  only  unfulfilled  desire  about  it  is 
that  I  was  not  present  at  this  noble  Confession.  I  have  been 
like  the  generals  who  could  take  no  part  in  defending  Vienna 
from  the  Turks.  But  it  is  my  joy  and  solace  that  meanwhile 
nvj  Vienna  was  defended  by  others." 

9.  July  15.  Luther  addresses  a  letter  to  his  "  most  dear 
brother  in  Christ,  Spalatine,  steadfast  Confessor  of  Christ  at 
Augsburg  ;"t  and  again,  July  20th,"  to  Spalatine,  faithful 
servant  and  Confessor  of  Christ  at  Augsburg. ":{: 

10.  July  20,  to  Melanchthon:  "It  was  a  great  afl&iction  to  me 
that  I  could  not  be  present  with  you  in  the  body  at  tliat  most 
beautiful  and  holy  Confession  of  Christ "  §  [pulcherrima  ct  Sanctis- 
sima.)  August  3d,  he  sends  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  "his  most 
dear  brother  in  Christ,  and  Confessor  of  the  Lord  at  Augsburg." 

11.  But  perhaps  nowhere  has  Luther's  enthusiastic  admira- 
tion for  the  Augsburg  Confession  blazed  up  more  brightly  than 
in  his  eloquent  summary  of  what  our  Confessors  had  done  at 
the  Diet.  It  is  in  the  last  letter  he  wrote  to  Melanchthon, 
before  they  again  met  at  Coburg  (September  15th):"  You  have 
confessed  Christ,  you  liave  offered  peace,  you  have  obeyed  the 
Emperor,  you  have  endured  injuries,  you  have  been  drenched 

*  De  Wette,  No.  1251.  AValcU  xvi,  1098.  %  Buddeus,  No.  154. 

f  Buddeus,  No.  150.  l  Buddeus,  No.  155. 


LUTHER'S   OPINION.  237 

in  their  revilings,  you  have  not  returned  evil  for  evil.  In 
brief,  you  have  worthily  done  God's  holy  work  as  becometh 
saints.  Be  glad  then  in  the  Lord,  and  exult,  ye  righteous. 
Long  have  ye  borne  witness  in  the  world,  look  up  and  lift  up 
your  heads,  for  your  redemption  draweth  nigh.  IiciU  canonize 
you  as  faith  fal  members  of  Christ,  and  what  greater  glory  can  ye 
have  than  to  have  yielded  Christ  faithful  service,  and  shown 
yourself  a  member  worthy  of  him  ?  " 

12.  Li  his  Table  Talk  Luther  said:  "Such  is  the  efficacy 
and  power  of  God's  word,  that  the  more  it  is  persecuted,  the 
more  it  flourishes  and  spreads.  Call  to  mind  the  Diet  at  Augs- 
burg, where  the  last  trumpet  before  the  judgment-day  sounded. 
How  the  whole  world  then  raged  against  our  doctrine !  Our 
doctrine  and  faith  were  brought  forth  to  light  in  our  Confes- 
sion. Our  doctrines  fell  into  the  souls  of  many  of  the  noblest 
men,  and  ran  like  sparks  in  tinder.  They  were  kindled,  and 
kindled  others.  Thus  our  Confession  and  Defence  came  forth 
in  the  highest  glory."  ^ 

13.  In  the  year  1533,  f  Luther  united  in  demanding  of  can- 
didates as  a  pre-requisite  to  entering  the  ministry,  the  declara- 
tion, "  that  they  embraced  the  uncorrupted  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  and  so  understood  it,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  Apostles', 
iN'icene,  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  and  as  it  is  repeated  in  the 
Confession,  which  our  Churches  offered  to  the  Emperor  at  the 
Diet  of  Augsburg,  1530,  and  the  promise  that  with  God's  help 
they  will  remain  steadfast  in  that  conviction  to  the  end,  and 
will  faithfully  perform  their  duty  in  the  Church." 

It  is  not  w^onderful  that  Melanchthon  himself  considered  the 
Confession  as  rather  Luther's  than  his  own,  and  called  it  "  the 
Confession  of  the  revered  Doctor  Luther."  :{ 

This,  then,  is  the  result  of  the  whole :  The  Holy  Ghost  in 
His  ordinary  illumination  through  the  Word,  is  the  true 
source  and  original  of  the  Augsburg  Confession ;  its  secondary 
source  is  the  whole  Evangelical  Church  of  1530,  the  main  organ 

*  Leipz.,  XX,  200.     Tischreden  (Foerstemann,)  iv,  354. 
f  Buddeus,  No.  178. 

X  Melanchthon  Orat.  (1553.)  Pref.  to  Confessio  Doctrinoe,  1551,  in  Corp.  Ref., 
lib.  xii,  No.  5349. 


238  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of  whose  utterance  was,  as  to  the  matter  and  the  suhstance  of 
the  form,  Lnther ;  as  to  the  finish   and   grace  of  the  form, 
Melanchthon :  both  acting  with  the  advice,  co-labor,  and  full 
approval  of  the  clerical  and  lay  representatives  of  the  Church. 
Just  as  we  accept  this  or  that  point  of  view,  we  may  say  that 
the   Augsburg  Confession   is   the   work    of  the   Evangelical 
Church,  or  of  the  theologians  and  laymen  at  Augsburg,  or  of 
Melanchthon,  or  of  Luther.     ''  The  Confession  of  ours,"  "  our 
Confession  which   our  Philip  prepared,"  "your  Confession," 
"ray  Confession,"  are   all  terms   employed  by  Luther.     All 
these  statements  are  true,  and  perfectly  harmonious — just  as 
we  may  say  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  the  work 
of  the  Thirteen  Colonies,  or  of  the  Continental  Congress,  or  of 
its  Committee,  or  of  Thomas  Jefferson.     Melanchthon,  then, 
was  by  pre-eminence  the  composer  of  the  Confession,  not  as  a 
private  individual,  but  as  chief  of  a  body  of  advisers,  without 
whose  concurrence  nothing  was  fixed,*  Luther,  by  pre-emi- 
nence, as  the  divinely  called  representative  of  the  Church,  its 
author.      Hence   all   candid   writers   have   most   heartily   in- 
dorsed Luther's  own  declaration,  in  which  he  not  only  claims 
the  Augsburg  Confession  as  in  one  sense  his  own,  but  ranks  it 
among  his  most  precious  works :  f  "  The  Catechism,  the  Expo- 
sition of  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession 
are  mine.'*   This  claim  he  puts  in,  in  no  sense  which  conflicts  with 
the  public  character  of  the   document,  or  of  Melanchthon 's 
great  merit,  as  in  part  the  compiler,  and  as  in  part  the  com- 
poser of  the  Confession.  Koellner  adds :  "  And  he  had  the  right 
to  say  so."    Weber :j:  says:  "As  to  its  matter,  Luther  was  the 
author  of  the  Confession,  not  indeed  the  only  one,  but  the  pri- 
mary one."   "  Melanchthon,"  says  Danz,  §  "  was  the  composer, 
the  editor,  not  the  author,  (Redacteur,  nicht  Urheber.)  " 

But  are  there  not  a  few  words  of  Luther  in  regard  to  the 
Confession,  which  are  in  conflict  with  this  enthusiastic  ap- 
proval ?     We  reply,  there  is  not  one  word  of  the  kind.     The 

*  Melanchthon,  June  26.     "I  would  have  changed  more  things  if  my  coun- 
sellors  would  have  permitted  it." 
f  Werke  (Walch,)  xxii,  4632.     Koellner,  181  (45.) 
X  L.  S.  prol.  ad  C.  A.  p.  viii.  §  A.  C.  §  3. 


ections    to    tho 
Confession. 


LUTHER'S   OBJECTIONS.  239 

passages  whicli  have  been  cited  to  show  that  Luther  was  not 
satisfied  with  the  Confession,  in  some  respects,  are  the 
following : 

1.  June  29,*  (to  Melanchthon.)  "  On  my  side  more  than 
enough  has  been  yielded  in  that  Apology,  which  if  they  refuse, 
I  see  nothing  more  which  I  can  yield,  unless  they  furnish 
clearer  reasons  and  Scripture  proofs  than  I  have  yet  seen  them 
furnish."  In  this  citation  it  is  manifest  that  Luther  does  not 
mean  that  any  concessions  have  been  made,  by  j^^ti.orv  aliened 
others,  for  him.  It  is  his  own  concessions  of  '^^J*^' 
which  he  speaks,  concessions  not  of  doctrine  or 
of  principle,  but  of  preferences,  very  dear  to  him,  which 
might  be  renounced  if  the  truth  itself  were  not  periled. 
"  Day  and  night "  he  adds,  "  I  am.  occupied  with  the  matter, 
thinking  over  it,  revolving  it  in  my  mind,  arguing,  searching 
the  entire  Scriptures,  and  there  grows  upon  me  constantly  that 
fullness  of  assurance,  in  this  our  doctrine,  and  I  am  more  and 
more  confirmed  in  the  purpose,  that  I  will  yield  nothing  more, 
come  what  may."  "I  am  ofifended  at  your  writing,  that  in 
this  cause,  you  follow  my  authority.  I  will  not  be,  nor  be 
called,  author  in  this  cause.  If  it  is  not  equally  your  cause,  it 
shall  not  be  said  that  it  was  mine,  and  was  imposed  on  you. 
If  it  be  my  cause  alone,  I  will  manage  it  alone."  "If  we  be 
not  the  Church,  or  a  part  of  the  Church,  where  is  the  Church  ? 
If  we  have  not  the  "Word  of  God,  who  has  it  ?  "  "  As  I  have 
always  written,  so  I  now  write,  I  am  ready  to  concede  to  them 
ev^erything,  provided  only,  that  the  Gospel  be  left  free  to  us. 
But  what  conflicts  with  the  Gospel  I  cannot  concede."  This 
shows  that  Luther  felt  that  no  concession  in  conflict  with  the 
Gospel  had  been  made  in  the  Confession. 

2.  The  letter  of  July3d,t  to  Melanchthon,  is  one  which 
Riickert,  with  the  prosiness  characteristic  of  the  Rationalistic 
mind,  is  completely  puzzled  with,  but  he  can  make  nothing  of 

^«- In  Latin:  Epistol.  Mar.  Lutli.  Buddeus,  113.  Coelestin.  i.  198.  De  Wette, 
No.  1236.  German:  Jena  (ed.l5G6)  40.  Leipz.  xx.  185.  French:  Chytraeus  (Le 
Cop)  131. 

t  Latin :  Ep.  M.  L.  Budd.  127.  Coelestinus,  204.  German :  Walch  xvi.  1082. 
De  Wette,No.  1243. 


240  CONSERVATIVE    BE  FORM  ATI  OX. 

it,  if  it  be  not  meant  to  censure  the  Confession.     It  must  be 
o-ranted,  that  it  opens  in  an  extraordinary  manner  for  a  letter 
of  censure:  "Yesterday,  I  read  again  carefully  your  Apology, 
and  it  pleases  me  vehemently."     Xow  come  the  supposed  Avords 
of  stricture:  "  But  it  errs  and  sins  in  one  thing,  that  it  acts 
contrary  to  the  Holy  Scripture,  where  Christ  says  of  himself, 
'  We  will  not  have  this  man  to  reign  over  us ' ;  and  falls  upon 
that  reproof  'the  stone  which  the   builders    rejected.'     But 
where  there  is  so  great  blindness  and  obstinacy,  what  can  you 
expect  but  to  be  rejected.     For  they  do  not  grant  us  the  name 
of  builders,  a  name  which  they  arrogate  to  themselves,  and 
with  justice  ;  but  we  ought  to  glory  in  the  name  of  destroyers, 
scatterers,  and  disturbers  ;  we  should  glory  in  being  counted 
with  the  wicked,  as  that  stone  itself  was  counted  with  thieves 
and  condemned  with  them.''     To  one  familiar  with  Luther's 
style  and  vein  of  thought,  it  is  at  once  apparent  that  these 
words  are  ironical  :  they  burlesque,  and  hardly  burlesque,  the 
absurd   arguments   and  use    of  texts  of  which    some  of  the 
Eomish  Controversialists  of  that  day  were  guilty.  Luther  begins 
by  playfully  personating  such    an   objector.     The  Confession 
will  have  Christ  to  reign  over  us,  but  the  objector  urges  this  is 
contrary  to  Scripture,  w^hich  says :  '  We  will  not  have  t  is  man 
to  reign  over  us.'     The  Confession  moreover  is   reproved  by 
Scripture  for  making  a  corner-stone  of  the  very  thing  which 
the  builders  rejected.     We  are  the  builders,  and  you  reform- 
ers are  the  pullers  down.     The  humor  of  the  passage  consists 
in  making  the  opponents  represent  that  as  approval  w^hich  the 
Scripture  condemns,  that  as  reproach  which  the  Scripture  ap- 
proves, and  in  throwing  upon  them  their  own  claims  to  be  Iniild- 
ers.     You  are  the  builders,  no  doubt,  the  builders  who  rejected 
the  stone  which  has  become  the  head-stone  of  the  corner,  in 
the  Confession. 

3.  The  letter  of  July  21,*  to  Justus  Jona.s,  speaking  of  the 
question  which  had  been  put, '  Wliether  the  Confession  had 
more  articles  to  present,'  says  :  "  Satan  still  lives,  and  has 
observed  that  your  Apology,  treading  softly,  has  passed  over 

Jt  LsUin:  Bua<l.  IGL).  Ccx-lestinus,  233.  German:  Walch  xvi.  2843.  De  Wetto. 
No.  126G. 


LUTHER'S  OBJECTIONS.  241 

the  Article  of  Purgatory,  of  the  Worship  of  the  Saints,  and 
most  of  all  of  the  Pope  as  Antichrist.  Unhappy  Emperor,  if  he 
proposes  to  give  up  the  Diet  to  listening  to  confutations  of  Luther, 
as  if  the  present  Apology  did  not  give  them  enough  to  answer." 
This  means  that  although  the  Confession,  hy  not  making  a 
longer  enumeration  of  abuses,  had  led  to  this  demand,  yet  that 
it  had  quite  enough.  The  words  moreover,  in  the  most  unfa- 
vorable sense,  would  only  show  that  Luther  wished  that 
among  the  Articles  of  Abuses  there  should  have  been  a  decla- 
ration that  the  Pope  is  Antichrist,  and  a  full  handling  of  the 
doctrine  of  Saint- Worship  and  Purgatory.  But  the  Confession, 
as  a  conjoint  public  document,  could  only  discuss  what  a  ma- 
jority of  those  wdio  were  to  unite  in  it  thought  best  to  present. 
Melanchthon  himself  was  overruled  in  regard  to  matters  he 
desired  to  introduce.  The  Augsburg  Confession  was  no  pri- 
vate document,  but  in  the  labors  of  both  Luther  and  Melanch- 
thon in  connection  with  it,  both  were  the  organs  of  the  whole 
Church,  and  were  compelled  to  sacrifice  their  mere  private 
preferences  to  the  common  judgment.  Every  sentence,  every 
word  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  stands,  embodies  the 
faith  of  Luther,  and  received  his  unqualified,  repeated,  and  en- 
thusiastic assent. 

If,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  Thomas  JeflPerson,  in 
preparing  his  statement  of  the  political  abuses  w^hich  justified 
our  separation  from  Great  Britain,  had  w^ished  to  specify  one 
or  tw^o  more  than  the  Committee  thought  necessary,  and  which 
were  consequently  not  inserted,  it  would  not  weaken  his  claim 
to  the  authorship  of  that  document.  Il^or  w^ould  the  fact,  that 
he  continued  to  think  that  it  would  have  improved  it  to  have 
specified  the  one  or  two  additional  abuses,  aiiect  the  conscien- 
tious heartiness  with  which  he  indorsed  that  document,  nor 
impair  the  value  of  his  testimony.  But  even  the  preference 
of  Luther,  to  which  this  is  a  fair  parallel,  w^as  but  transient, 
and  he  came  to  see  clearly  wdiat  the  whole  world  has  s-ince 
seen,  that  in  its  silence,  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  a  model  of 
exquisite  judgment,  as  in  its  utterances  it  is  a  masterpiece  of 
style. 

The  occasion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  the  command 
16 


242  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of  the  Emperor,  —  not  that  he  demanclecl  such  a  Confession, 

but  that  under  the  leadings  of  God's  providence  it  grew  out 

^..  .   ,  .u     of  his  summons.     The  last  was  destined  to  become 

Obiect  of  the 

Angsburg  Con-    first,  aud    tlic   first   last.     The   Confessors   them- 
^'''^'""-  selves  did  not  at  first  realize  the  full  value  of  the 

opening  which  had  been  made   for  the    proclamation  of  the 
truth,  but  when  it  dawned  upon  them  they  showed  themselves 
worthy  of  their  great  position.     They  at  first  meant  but  an 
Apology.     The  faith  they  cherished,  and  the  usages  they  prac- 
tised, they  simply  wished  to  defend  from  the  current  libels. 
This  object  they  did  not  lose  sight  of,  but  it  became  secondary. 
Their  distinctive  object  soon  became  the  setting  forth  the  great 
points  in  the  whole  system  of  heavenly  truth,  and  the  showing 
how,  in  its  light,  they  had  endeavored  cautiously,  and  gently, 
yet   firmly,  to  remove   the   abuses  which  had   arisen   in    the 
Church  of  the  West.     The  Apology  was  transfigured  into  a 
Confession.    It  was  not  only  not  meant  to  be  a  compromise  with 
Popery,  but  it  clearly  showed,  and  was  designed  to  show,  that 
such  a  compromise  is  impossible.     Our  Reformers  had  indeed 
cherished  a  noble  hope,  which  bitter  experience  was  constantly 
rendering  feebler,  that    the   whole  Church  of  the  West,   re- 
deemed from  the  thrall  of  the  Pope,  might  return  to  her  ancient 
Scriptural  faith,  and,  abjuring  Roman  Catholicism,  attain  once 
more  to  Christian  Catholicity,  and  become  a  Communion  of 
saints.     If  such  a  return  had  been  possible,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, alike  in  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  its  statement  of 
doctrine,  the  conservatism  of  its  whole  tone,  its  firmness  and 
its  gentleness,  would  have  helped  to  facilitate  it ;  but  the  bridge 
it  made  was  not  meant  to  open  the  way  back  to  error,  but  to 
aid  men  to  come  over  to  the  pure  faith. 

The  Confession,  in  Latin  and  German,  was  presented  to  the 
,     Diet  on  Saturday,  June  25th,  1530.     Both  texts 

The    presenta-  •/  ^  ' 

tion  of  the  Con-  arc  ori^iuals;  neither  text  is  properly  a  translation 
InT'" '  German  of  thc  othcr ;  both  prcscut  precisely  the  same  doc- 
Text  *  trines,  but  with  verbal  differences,  which  make  the 

*  Manuscripts  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Archives.     Cf.  Kollner,  321 
-336. 
A.  Latin  manuscripts.  Kollner  323-329.  Corpus  Refovmatorum,  xxvi,  213-220. 


THE  PRESENTATION  OF  THE   CONFESSION.     243 

one  an  indispensable  guide  in  the  full  understanding  of  the 
other;  both  texts  have,  consequently,  the  same  autliority. 
The  German  copy  was  the  one  selected,  on  national  grounds, 
to  be  read  aloud.  Both  copies  were  taken  by  the  Emperor, 
who  handed  the  German  to  the  Elector  of  Mentz,  and  retained 
the  Latin.  It  is  not  now  known  where  either  of  the  originals 
is,  nor  with  certainty  that  either  is  in  existence.  In  addition 
to  seven  unauthorized  editions  in  the  year  1530,  the  Confession 
was  printed,  under  Melanchthon's  own  direction,  both  in  Latin 
and  German,  while  the  Diet  was  still  sitting.  Authorized  edi- 
tions of  this  year,  both  in  Latin  and  German,  are  in  the  hands 
of  the  w^riter,  and  have  been  examined  in  preparing  this  w^ork. 
The  Confession  began  to  be  multiplied  at  once.  Innumerable 
editions  of  the  originals,  and  translations  into  the  chief  lan- 
guages of  Europe  appeared.  Its  enemies  have  helped  its  friends 
to  circulate  it,  and  to  preserve  the  re-issues  of  these  originals 
from  any  change  involving  more  than  questions  of  purely  lite- 
rary interest. 

When  Melanchthon,  in  1540,  issued  a  varied  Edition  of  the 
Latin,  though  he  declared  that  the  changes  were  but  verbal, 
and  that  he  designed  only  to  state  more  clearly  the  precise 
doctrine  of  the  Confession  in  its  original  shape,  the  changes 
were  marked  by  foe  and  friend.     In  Melanchthon's  Edition 

1.  The  Weimar  MS:  (Vin.  Weim.)  cf.  Corp.  Reform,  1.  c.  223.  Kollner  323. 
Foerstemann,  Urkundenb.  i.  444.  Weber  i.  79-81.  The  variations  are  given  in 
Weber,  Foerstemann,  Hase,  MUller,  Corp.  Reformat. — 2.  The  Anspach:  (Onold. 
Ansb.)ut  supra.  —  3.  The  Hannoverian.  Kollner  324.  Weber  i.  84.  ^-4.  Hessian  I. 
Kollner  325;  Foerstemann  i.  442,  gives  the  variations.  —  5.  Hessian  ii.  Foerste- 
mann i.  444,  gives  the  variations.  —  6.  Dessau  (Anhalt. )  Cf.  Weber  i.  87,  who  gives 
the  variations. — 7.  The  Nuremberg.  Kollner  336;  Weber  i.  94,  gives  the  variations. 

—  8.  The  Ratisbon.  Kollner  327;  Foerstemann  446,   gives   the  variations  (Reg.) 

—  9.  The  Wijrzburger,  Kollner  329;  Foerstemann  (i.  446)  gives  the  variations. 
B.  German  Manuscripts. 

1.  The  Mentz  copy  in  the  Protocoll  of  the  Empire.  This  was  long  regarded 
as  the  original,  and  as  such  found  a  place  in  the  Book  of  Concord  (1580.)  Cf. 
Weber  i.  165;  Kollner  306.  — 2.  Spalatin's  (Weimar  i.)  —  3.  Weimar  (ii.) —4. 
The  first  Anspach  (i.)  —  5.  The  second  Anspach  (ii.) — 6.  The  third  Anspach 
(iii.)  —  7.  The  Hannoverian.  —  8,  The  Nuremberg. —9.  The  Hessian. — 10.  The 
Munich  [MiJnch.]  — 11.  Nordlingen.  — 12.  Augsburg.  Of  all  these  Kollner, 
Foerstemann  and  Weber  give  full  descriptions,  and  the  two  latter  the  variations  ; 
30  also  MUller,  under  the  text  of  the  Editio  Princeps. 


244  CONSERVATIVE   RE  FOR  MAT  I  OK. 

of  1531,  trifling  changes  of  a  verbal  nature  had  been  made,  b^t 
in  antithesis  to  both  this  Edition  and  the  Original  of  1530, 
that  of  1540  is  called  the  Variata,  because  it  has 
conflLior  aT-  elaborated  anew  some  of  the  articles,  and  has  made 
tcre.i*  important  changes.     The   Urst  articles  so  treated 

is  the  Article  on  Original  Sin,  (II)  in  which  the  changes  are 
these  as  given  in  brackets : 

"  They  also  teach  that  after  Adam's  fall  all  men  propagated 
after  the  common  course  of  nature  [the  natural  mode]  are  born 
with  sin  [being  born  have  sin  of  origin]  that  is  without  fear 
of  God,  without  trust  toward  God.  [But  by  sin  of  origin,  we 
understand,  what  the  Holy  Fathers  so  call,  and  all  the  orthodox 
and  piously  instructed  in  the  Church,  to  wit,  liability  (reatum) 
by  which  those  born,  are  on  account  of  (propter)  Adam's  fall, 
liable  to  (rei)  the  wrath  of  God  and  eternal  death,  as  also,  the 
corruption  itself,  of  human  nature,  which  (corruption)  is  pro- 
])agated  from  Adam,]  and  w^ith  concupiscence.  [And  the  cor- 
ruption of  human  nature,  defect  of  the  original  righteousness, 
or  integrity,  or  obedience,  embraces  concupiscence.] 

*  Melanchthon's  varied  edition  of  the  Latin  Confession  of  three  kinds. 
I.   1531,  8vo.     II.  1540,  4to.     Ill    1542,  8vo.     Weber  ii.  32-116. 

I.  Edition  of  1531,  8vo.  The  variations  slight.  It  has  never  been  pretended 
that  they  affect  the  meaning.  Weber  ii.  82-102.  Corpus  Reformat,  xxvi.  337.  - 
Lutheri  Opera,  Jena  (1583)  iv,  191-203. —Melanchthon's  Opera,  Wittenb.  1562, 
p.  27-38.  —  Corpus  doctrinse,  Leipz.  1563,  given  with  that  of  1542. —  This  edi- 
tion has  often  been  confounded  with  the  edition  of  1530,  4to.  (1.  a.,)  and  was 
actually  introduced  by  Selnecker  into  the  first  Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Con 
cord.  Cf.  Weber  ii.  102;  Kollner  348.  The  variations  arc  given  in  Hase  :  Pro- 
legomena xv.  Confess.  Variat.Varietas,  and  are  marked  (A.) 

II.  Edition  of  the  Latin  Confession,  1540,  4to.  The  variata.  Weber  ii.  103-107. 
—  Corpus  Reformat,  xxvi,  339.— It  is  given  in  Corpus  Reformatorum  xxvi,  351- 
416,  with  the  various  readings.  (Edit,  of  1535,  1538.  — The  variations  are 
given  in  Hase:  Prolegomena  xv-lxxiv  and  are  marked  (B.)  —  It  is  translated  in 
"An  Harmony  of  Confessions,"  &c.,  Cambridge,  1586.  It  is  there  called  the 
"first  edition."  Cf.  Weber  ii.  103,  Kollner  349. 

III.  Latin  Confession  of  1542,  8vo.  The  variata  varied. —  Weber  ii.  108-116, 
Corpus  Reformat,  xxvi,  345.  —  Given  in  Corpus  Doctrinae,  Lipsiae,  1563.  1-56. — 
Fabricii  Harmonia  1573.  —  Melanclithonis  Opera  (Peucer)  Witt.  1562.  i.  39-58. 
This  has  been  frequently  reprinted,  and  is  sometimes  confounded  with  the  Vari- 
ata of  1540. —The  variations  are  given  in  Hase,  and  are  marked  (C.)  and  in 
Corp.  Reform,  (ed.  4.)  Cf. Weber  ii.  108;  Kollner  349.  It  is  translated  in  "an 
Haruiony,"  kc.     It  is  there  called  "  the  second  edition." 


THE  AUGSBURG   CONFESSION  ALTERED.      245 

"And  that  this  disease  or  vice  of  origin  [And  this  defect  is  a 
horrible  blindness  and  non-obedience,  to-wit,  to  lack  that 
lio^ht  and  knowledo;e  of  God  which  would  have  been  in  nature, 
in  integrity ;  likewise  to  lack  that  rectitude,  that  is  perpetual 
obedience,  the  true,  pure  and  highest  love  of  God,  and  like 
gifts  of  nature  in  integrity.  Wherefore  these  defects  and  con- 
cupiscence, are  things  condemned,  and  in  their  own  nature 
worthy  death  ;  and  the  vice  of  origin]  is  truly  sin  .  .  .  [They 
condemn  the  Pelagians  who  deny  the  sin  of  origin,  and  think 
that  those  defects,  or  concupiscence,  are  things  indifferent  or 
penalties  only,  not  things  to  be  condemned  in  their  own  nature, 
and  who  dream  that  man  can  satisfy  the  law  of  God,  and  can 
on  account  of  this  obedience  of  his  own  be  pronounced  just 
before  God.] " 

The  Fourth  Article  (on  Justification)  is  greatly  enlarged, 
and  the  treatment  of  the  topic  is  very  fine.  The  Fifth  on  the 
Means  of  Grace  asserts  more  distinctly  than  the  original  Con- 
fession the  itniversality  of  the  offer  of  Remission  in  the  Gospel, 
and  is  thus  more  positively  Anti-Calvinistic  in  its  expression  on 
this  point.  The  Sixth  amplifies  the  doctrine  of  Holiness,  in  its 
relations  to  Justification.  In  the  l^inth  it  is  said  :  Baptism  is 
necessary  to  salvation  [as  a  ceremony  instituted  by  Christ.] 
Infants  through  Baptism,  being  [committed]  to  God,  are  re- 
ceived into  God's  favor,  [and  become  children  of  God,  as  Christ 
testifieth,  saying  of  the  little  ones  in  the  Church,  Matt,  xviii, 
'  It  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  in  heaven,  that  one  of  these 
little  ones  should  perish'.]  They  condemn  the  Anabaptists 
who  affirm  that  infants  are  saved  without  Baptism  [and  out- 
side of  the  Church  of  Christ.]  This  is  yet  more  decidedly  than 
the  original  Article  incapable  of  a  Calvinistic  construction.  The 
Articles  on  Free  Will  (xviii,)  the  Defence  of  Justification  by 
Faith  (xx,)  the  Worship  of  Saints  (xxi,)  are  all  ably  amplified. 
The  Articles  on  Abuses  are  recast  and  re-arransfisd.  It  is  not 
to  be  disputed  that  in  various  respects,  as  a  statement  of  doctrine, 
the  Variata  has  great  beauty  and  great  value,  and  that  where 
it  indisputably  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  original  Confes- 
sion, it  furnishes  an  important  aid  in  its  interpretation.  Had 
Melanchthon  put  forth  the  new  matter  purely  as  a  private 


246  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

writing,  most  of  it  would  have  received  the  unquestioning  ad- 
miration to  which  it  was  well  entitled.  But  he  made  the  fatal 
mistake  of  treating  a  great  official  document  as  if  it  were  his 
private  property,  yet  preserving  the  old  title,  the  old  form  in  gen- 
eral, and  the  old  signatures.  How  would  Jefferson  have  been 
regarded  if  in  1786,  ten  years  after  the  Declaration,  he  had  sent 
furth  what  he  called  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  enlarged 
here,  abridged  there,  with  new  topics  and  new  treatment,  and 
with  Avhat  seemed  at  least  a  concession  to  the  power  from 
whom  we  had  separated,  had  added  to  this  the  names  of  the 
Committee  and  the  vouchers  of  the  Continental  Congress,  that 
this  was  its  act  and  deed  for  the  nation  ?  Melanchthon  did 
worse  than  this.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  the 
mere  fortn  of  an  act  consummated.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
was  a  document  of  permanent  force,  and  of  continuous  use. 
To  alter  any  of  its  doctrines,  was  to  acknowledge  that  so  far 
the  ConfessoKS  had  erred,  and  to  excite  the  suspicion  that  they 
might  have  erred  in  more  ;  and  to  alter  the  phrases,  no  matter 
what  explanation  might  be  given,  would  be  construed  as  involv- 
ing alteration  of  doctrine.  Kor  were  the  adversaries  of  our 
faith  slow  in  taking  advantage  of  Melanchthon's  great  mis- 
take. The  first  public  notice  of  the  change  came  from  the 
Eoman  Catholic  side.  Melauchthon  brought  the  Variata  with 
him  to  the  Colloquy  at  Worms,  at  the  beginning  of  1541.* 
The  Augsburg  Confession  was  by  the  request  of  the  Protestants 
(Lutherans)  to  be  the  basis  of  the  discussion.  Eck  brought 
to  the  Colloquy,  from  the  Imperial  Archives  of  Mentz,  the 
German  Original,  which  had  been  read  at  the  Diet  in  1530,  and 
had  been  given  to  the  Emperor.  He  opened  with  these  words: 
''  Before  all  else  I  would  prefer  one  thing  .  .  Those  of  the  other 
part  have  offered  to  us  a  cop^^  of  the  Confession  and  Apology, 
not  at  all  (minus)  in  conformity  with  the  Ilagenau  Recess,  in 
virtue  of  which  the  Confession  itself^  as  it  was  given  (exhibita) 
to  his  Imperial  majesty,  and  the  Princes,  ought  to  have  been 
given  to  us  also,  nakedly  and  truly  .  .  .  waiving  that  point  how- 
ever, with  a  protest,  Ave  turn  to  the  matter  in  hand."     To  this 

*  Corpus   Reforniator.  iv.    No.   2132.     P.    Mclanchthon.    Leb.   u.   ausgewahlt. 
Werkc,  von  Dr.  Carl  Schmidt.  Elberfeld.  18G1.  379. 


THE  AUGSBURG   C OXFE SSION  ALTERED.        247 

Melanchthon  replied,  "  As  to  the  dissimilarity  of  copies,  I  an- 
swer that  the  meaning  of  the  things  is  the  same  (rerum  eandeni 
esse  sententiam,)  although  some  things  here  and  there,  in  the 
later  edition,  are  more  freed  from  harshness,  (mitigata)  or  are 
more  explicit."  To  this  Eck  replied:  ''As  to  the  variation 
of  copies,  I  could  easily  overthrow  his  reply,  and  show  by  ocu- 
lar inspection,  that  not  only  in  words,  but  in  the  things  them- 
selves, these  copies  depart  from  the  Augsburg  Confession.  For 
brevity's  sake  I  defer  what  I  have  to  say,  to  the  Articles  as 
they  come  up  in  the  colloquy,  when  I  will  make  clear  what  I 
have  alleged,  as  in  the  Ihith  Article,  etc."  To  this  Melanch- 
thon said :  "  We  can  reply  more  fitly  elsewhere  to  what  has 
been  urged  in  regard  to  copies  —  and  let  there  be  some  modera- 
tion to  charo-es  of  this  sort."  To  this  Eck  said  :  "  As  to  the 
change  of  copies,  I  now  purposely  pass  it  by."  If  Melanch- 
thon consciously  made  a  change  of  meaning  in  the  Confession, 
it  is  impossible  to  defend  him  from  the  charge  of  direct 
falsehood.  For  ourselves  Ave  do  not  hesitate  for  a  moment. 
With  all  the  mistakes  into  which  Melanchthon  fell  through 
his  great  love  of  peace,  we  regard  him  as  above  all  suspicion 
in  any  point  involving  Christian  character.  If  the  doctrine 
of  the  Variata  difters  from  that  of  the  Confession,  the  change 
was  not  designed  by  Melanchthon.  We  go  further  and  say, 
that  to  accept  it  as  a  Canon,  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
Variata  is  to  be  conditioned  by  a  belief  that  Melanchthon 
designed  no  changes,  will  involve  the  interpreter  in  no  absurd- 
ity. The  Variata  can  be  so  interpreted  as  to  be  in  sufficient 
harmony  with  the  Unaltered  Confession,  to  leave  Melanch- 
thon's  statement  credible.  Of  the  changes  in  the  Tenth  Ar- 
ticle (the  Lord's  Supper)  we  shall  speak  in  another  place.  The 
Calvinists  and  Crypto-Calvinists  acted  as  if  they  did  not  be- 
lieve Melanchthon's  statement  that  no  alteration  of  doctrine 
had  been  intended.  In  the  Lutheran  Church  different  views 
were  taken  of  the  matter.  Those  who  believed  Melanchthon's 
declaration  that  the  changes  were  purely  verbal,  the  better  to 
express  the  very  doctrine  set  forth  at  Augsburg,  either  passed 
them  over  without  disapproval,  or  were  comparatively  lenient 
in  their  censure.     Every  instance  of  the  seeming  toleration  of 


248  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

them  in  the  Lutheran  Church  was  connected  with  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Altered  Confession  in  no  respect  whatever  dif- 
fered from  the  doctrine  of  the  Unaltered.  There  never  was 
any  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  which  imagined  that  Me- 
lanchthon  had  any  right  to  alter  the  meaning  of  the  Confession 
in  a  single  particular.  Melanchthon  himself  repeatedly,  after 
the  appearance  of  the  Variata,  acknowledged  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  as  a  statement  of  his  own  unchanged 
faith,  as  for  example,  at  the  Diet  of  Ratisbon  in  1541.  In 
1557,  at  the  Colloquy  at  Worms,  he  not  only  acknowledged 
as  his  Creed,  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apol- 
ogy, and  the  Smalcald  Articles,  but  by  name,  and  in  writing, 
condemned  the  Zwinglian  doctrine.  But  a  few  days  before  his 
death  (1560),  he  said :  "  I  confess  no  other  doctrine  than  that 
which  Luther  propounded,  and  in  this  will  abide  to  the  end 
of  my  life."  Any  man  who  professes  to  accept  the  Altered 
Confession,  therefore,  though  he  rejects  the  Unaltered,  either 
is  dishonest,  or  assumes  that  Melanchthon  was,  and  shows 
himself  willing  to  take  advantage  of  his  moral  weakness. 
The  history  of  the  Altered  Confession  demonstrates  that  not 
only  is  it  no  gain  to  the  peace  of  the  Church,  but  produces  a 
yet  more  grievous  disturbance  of  it,  when  the  eifort  is  made  to 
harmonize  men  by  an  agreement  in  ambiguous  phraseology, 
the  adoption  of  terms  which  are  to  be  accepted  in  one  sense  by 
one  set  of  men,  and  in  another  sense  by  another. 

The  Current  Edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  Latin, 

the  one  which  is  found  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  is 

The    Current     ^     i^^p^int  of  ]Melanchthon's  own  first  Edition  of 

Editions   of    the     ^  I  -,  r-t         n        •  ' 

Augsburg    Con-  1530.     Thc  Currcut  Edition  ot  the  Confession  in 
fe.8i.m:  Latin  and  Qj,j^j^j^j^  howcvcr,  which  is  thc  QUO  fouud  iu  the 

German.*  '  '  •  r.     -»  r    i  i 

Book  of  Concord,  is  not  a  reprint  ot    Melanch- 
thon's  first  Edition,  and  this  fact  requires  some  explanation. 

*  Editions  and  Translations  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

For  the  Literature  see  Fabkicius  :  Centifol.  100,  585-589.Feuerlin  :  Bibl.  Symb. 
[1st  ed.  44-60]  p.  40  seq.  Mascii  :  Beytrage  zur  Geschichte  merkwurdig. 
Biicher,  [1700]  i.  159.  — Salig  :  i.  695-737.  Koechkr:  Bibliotheca  theoL  Symbol. 
145-140.  Weber  :  Kritisch.  Geschichte.  Vol.  ii.  —  Kollner  :  Symbol.  Luth.  Kirch. 
226-237.  344-353.  —Corpus  Rcformatum  xxvi.  201-264.  337-350.  On  the  trans- 
latioi>8.  of.  Weber  ii.  4.  Feuerlin   60-64    [66-69.]    Rotermund,  184.    Danz.   38. 


THE  CONFESSION— CURRENT  EDITIONS.       249 

The  original  German  was,  as  we  have  seen,  deposited  in  the 
imperial  archives  at  Mentz.  The  Emperor  had  forbidden  the 
Confession  to  be  printed  without  his  permission  ;  nevertheless, 
it  appeared  surreptitiously  several  times  in  the  year,  printed 

The  woi'k  of  Weber,  which  is  classic  in  the  department  of  the  criticism  of  the 
text  of  the  Confession,  arranges  the  diflFerent  editions  according  to  the  order  of 
their  publication  thus: 

A.  The  unauthorized  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  1530.  These 
were  issued  contrary  to  the  order  of  the  Emperor,  and  without  the  knowledge  of 
the  Protestant  Princes.  Weber  i.  353-408.  Danz.  35-40.  There  were  seven  edi- 
tions of  this  kind. 

I.  Latin :  There  was  one  Latin  edition.  This  is  described  by  Weber  :  i,  405- 
408,  and  the  variations  (Eu.  Ant.)  from  Melanchthon's  are  given  by  him  in  the 
Beylagen  to  the  second  part  of  the  Krit.  Gesch.  cf.  Corpus  Reformatorum  xxvi. 
231-234. 

IL  German, 

1.  Described  by  Weber  i.  357-366,  and  the  various  readings  (Ae.  Ex.  1.)  given. 
Beylag.  z.  Erst.  Theil.  iii. — 2.  Described  by  Weber:  i.  367-372,  more  correct 
than  the  former.  —  3.  Described  by  Weber  :  i.  872-375,  closely  conformed  to 
No.  1.  —  4.  Described  by  Weber:  i.  376-381,  closely  follows  No.  1.  cf.  Reimmani 
Catalog.  403.  Feuerlin  41.  — 5.  Described  by  Weber:  i.  381-387.  cf.  Salig.  L 
711.  Feuerlin  41.  — 6.  Given  by  Zeidler  in  the  supplemental  volume  of  Luther's 
Werke.  Halle  1702,  p.  346-363.  Described  by  Weber  :  i.  387-400,  who  gives 
the  variations  (Ae.  Ex.  2.)  Compare  in  addition,  Kollner  Symbolik  228-231. 
The  whole  of  these,  Weber  has  shown  (400)  are  probably  based  on  but  one  MS. 

B.  Melanchthonian  Editions  :  cf.  Kollner,  231,  345.  Melanchthon's  Praefatio. 
Salig.  i.  471.  Weber  ii.  6. 

L  The  first  of  these,  the  Editio  Princeps,  is  the  4to  edition,  Latin  and  Ger- 
man. Wittenberg,  1530  (1531.)  Copies  of  the  Confession  in  this  edition  came  to 
Augsburg  while  the  Diet  was  still  in  session.  Weber  i.  356.  ii.  11.  Hase  Pro- 
leg.  V.  3,  Kollner  234,  cf.  Feuerlin  No.  253  (205)  and  above  all,  Corpus  Re- 
formator.  xxvi,  234-258. 

1.  The  Latin,  accurately  reprinted,  with  various  readings,  in  Weber's  Kritisch. 
Gesch.  ii.  Beylage  i.  Nothwend.  Vertheidig.  1629.  24-223.  The  Latin  of  the  ed. 
princeps  is  also  the  Textus  receptus  of  the  Symbol.  Books.  Reinecii  Concord. 
Lips.  1708.  Do.  Lips.  1730.  (A.  C.  Germ,  et  Latina  cum  vers.  Graeca.)  Pfaff  : 
Lib.  Symb.  Tiibing.  1730  first  critical  edition.  Walcii.  Christlich.  Concordienb. 
Jena  1750.  Rechenberg:  Concordia  Lips.  1732  (1677.) — Twesten:  1816.  Winer: 
1825.  Hase:  Libr.  Symb.  (1827)  with  various  readings. — Francke  :  Lib.  Symb. 
1846,  with  various  readings,  and  compared  with  the  German :  Muller  :  Die  Symb. 
Bucher,  1848. — Tittmann  :  Confessio  Fidei  &c.,  ex  prima  Melanchthonis  edi- 
tione,  Dresden  1830;  8vo.  with  notes.  Weber,  1830,  with  notes  —  Foerstemann  : 
Urkundenbuch  i.  470-559,  with  various  readings.  —  Corpus  Reformatorum  : 
xxvi.  263-336,  with  various  readings.  From  this  edition  we  have  the  doc- 
trinal articles  in  Schmucker's  Pop.  Theolog.,  1834.  Appendix  i.  Do.  Luth- 
eran  Manual,    1855.      Translations.     It   has    been    translated    into    French: 


250  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

in  no  case  from  a  copy  of  the  original,  but  from  copies  of  the 
Confession  made  before  it  had  reached  the  perfect  form  in 
which  it  was  actually  presented  to  the  Diet.  These  editions 
of  the  Confession  not  only  being  unauthorized,  but  not  pre- 

Histoire  de  la  Conf.  d'Auxpourg  (Chytraeus)  mise  en  Francois  par  Luc  le  Cop. 
Anvers,  1582,72-106;  cf.  Weber  ii.  212-216.  Fabricius,  Cent.  Luth.  588. —In 
English  :  An  harmony  of  Confessions,  &c.  Cambridge  1586. — S.  S.  Schmucker, 
D.  D.,  Popular  Theology,  183-1.  In  the  doctrinal  articles  the  condemnatory 
clauses  are  omitted,  except  in  Art.  xii,  xiii,  xvi,  xvii.  — E.  Hazelius,  D.  D.,  Dis- 
cipline, etc.,  1841.  5-56.  The  doctrinal  articles  only,  but  with  the  condemna- 
tory clauses.  —  C.  P.  Krauth  :  Augsburg  Confession  with  notes.  Philada.  1868. 
On  the  translations  of  the  Augs.  Confess,  into  English,  cf.  Weber  ii.  216-218. 
Under  the  direction  of  Thomas  Cromwell,  "who  died  a  Lutheran"  (Burnet)  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology  were  translated  by  Richard  Taverner  into 
English,  and  were  printed  in  London,  1536. 

2.  The  GermAxV  of  the  Editio  princeps  {not  the  Text,  recept.  of  the  Symbol. 
Books)  cf.  Weber  ii.  16-54;  Kollxer  346  (Cyprian  Cap.  x.)  Given  in  Luther's 
Werke,  Jena  vi,  387.  Leipzig,  xx,  9.  —  Twesten  :  1816.  —  Tittmann  :  Die  Augs- 
burg Confess,  nach  den  Original  Ausgab.  Melanchthon's.  Dresden  1830,  with 
notes.  — MiiLLER :  Symb.  Bucher,  1848.  Abdriicke  von  Melanchthon's  erster 
Ausgabe  der  Augsb.  Confess.  861-904,  with  various  readings.  The  variations 
from  the  German  Text,  recept.,  as  given  in  Baumgarten's  Concord.  [Rh,  from 
Rhaw  —the  printer  of  the  original  edition,)and  in  Walch  :  Concordienbuch  (Wit- 
tenberg i.)  Weber  i.  Beylag.iii. 

II.  Melanchthon's  "  improved"  edition  of  the  German  Confession,  1533,  8vo. 
Cf.  Weber  K.  G.  ii.  55-81.  Feuerlin,  44,  45  (48,)  Kollner  347.  Given  in  Corpus 
Doctrinse.  Leipz.  1560.  i-xlii.  —  Weber  :  Augspurg.  Confession  nach  der  Ur- 
schrift  im  Reich's  Archiv,  nebst  einerEhrenrettung  Melanchthon's,  Weimar.1781. 
8vo.  The  mistake  of  Weber,  which  led  to  the  issue  of  this  edition,  is  one  of  the 
curiosities  of  Theological  Literature,  (cf.  Kollner  Symb.  294.)  It  became  the  occa- 
sion of  the  preparation  of  his  masterly  work :  The  Critical  History  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession. 

C.  The  Augsburg  Confession  (German)  from  a  collation  of  the  copy  in  the  Im- 
perial Archives  (The  received  German  text  of  the  Book  of  Concord.)  Kollner 
349;  Weber  ii.  117-192. —  Given  in  Chytrasus:  Histor.  der  Augspurg.  Confess. 
(1576)1580.  59-94. —Ccelestinus:  Historia  Comit.  August,  1577.  ii.  151-167. 
—  Concordia.  Dresden  1580.  Fol.  3-20.  Nothw.  Vertheidig.  1629.  24-223.  Muller, 
Historia  595-649.  Reineccius  1730.  Cyprian,  Historia  1730. —Weber's  Krit. 
Gesch.  1783,  i.  Beylage  iii,  with  various  readings.  Schott  1829,  and  in  most  of 
the  histories  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  — It  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  German, 
and  German-Latin  editions  of  the  Symbols.  With  various  readings  in  Reineccius 
1708.  Baumgarten  1747.  Walch  1750.  Twesten  1816.  Amnion  1829.  Muller 
1848.  Schmucker  :  Lutheran  Manual,  1855.  325-339,  gives  the  doctrinal 
articles  and  the  Epilogue.  Translations  :  The  abridged  translation  of  the  ar- 
ticles on  abuses  in  Dr.  Schmucker's  Popular  Theology,  p.  337,  is  from  this  edition. 
In  the  Lutheran  Manual,  283-309,  a  complete  translation  is  given  of  the  articles 


THE   CONFESSION— CURRENT  EDITIONS.        251 

seuting  it  in  the  shape  in  which  it  had  actually  been  delivered, 
Melanchthon  issued  tlie  Confession  both  in  German  and  Latin. 
The  German  was  printed  from  his  own  manuscript,  from 
which  the  copy  had  been  taken  to  be  laid  before  the  Diet.  It 
reached  Augsburg,  and  was  read  and  circulated  there,  while 
the  Diet  was  still  in  session.  Melanchthon  issued  it  expressly 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  unauthorized  editions  were  not 
accurate. 

The  first  authorized  edition,  the  Editio  Princeps,  coming 
from  the  hand  of  its  composer,  and  presenting  not  only  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  the  highest  guarantee  for  strict  accuracy, 
but  surrounded  by  jealous  and  watchful  enemies,  in  the  very 
Diet  yet  sitting,  before  which  it  was  read,  surrounded  by  men 
eager  to  mark  and  to  exaggerate  the  slightest  appearance  of 
discrepance,  Avas  received  by  Luther  and  the  whole  Lutheran 
Church.  ^  Luther  knew  no  other  Augsburg  Confession  in  the 
German  than  this.  It  was  received  into  the  Bodies  of  Doc- 
trine of  the  whole  Church.  It  appears  in  the  Jena  edition  of 
Luther's  works,  an  edition  which  originated  in  the  purpose 
of  having  his  writings  in  a  perfectly  unchanged  form,  and  was 

on  abuses,  also  from  this  edition.  The  Unalt.  Aug.  Conf.  New  York,  1847,  do. 
1848.  Phila.  1855,  for  the  Lutheran  Board  of  Publication. —The  Christian 
Book  of  Concord.  New  Market,  1851.  Second  edition  revised,  1854.  The  Con- 
fession was  translated  by  Revs.  A.  and  S.  Henkel,  for  the  first  edition,  and  re- 
vised by  C.  Philip  Kraut h,  D.  D.,  for  the  second. 

D.  Combined  editions.  Cf.  Weber  ii.  193-206.   Kollner  351. 

I.  Latin.  Fabricii  Leodii :  Harmonia  Aug.  Conf.  Colon.  1573,  Fol.  It  contains 
1.  A  text  claiming  to  be  the  original.  2.  The  variata  of  1542.  3.  A^arious  read- 
ings from  the  4to  edition  of  1530,  and  the  8vo  of  1531.  Cf.  Corpus  Reformat, 
xxvi,  225-229.  — Corpus  Doctrinae,  Lips.  1563.  1.  The  Confess,  of  1542.  2. 
The  8vo  of  1531.     Translation:  An  Harmony  of  Confessions,  Cambridge,  1586. 

II.  German.  Chytrseus :  Historia  (1580.)  1.  The  received  text  from  the 
archives.     2.  The  text  of  the  Editio  Princeps  where  it  differs  from  the  other, 

III.  German  and  Latin.  Nothwendige  Vertheidigung  des  Aug.  Apffels.  Leipz. 
1G19.  24-223.  Editio  princeps  of  Latin,  Textus  recep.  of  the  German.  Reineccius 
1708.  Do.  1730.  Walch  1750.  Muller  1848.  Do.  Tittmann  1830,  Editio  princeps 
of  both.  TwESTEN  1816.  1,  ed.  princ.  of  Latin  and  German,  2.  German  of  the 
ordinary  edition. 

IV.  Greek,  Latin  and  German  (Dolscii)  ed.  Reineccius,  1730. 

E.  Versified. — Angspurgisches  Lehr-lied.  The  Doctrinal  articles  only.  In 
Greek  and  Latin  verse  (Rhodomann)  1730,  There  is  also  an  English  versifica- 
tion of  the  Doctrinal  Articles  in  the  oldest  Moravian  Hymn  Books, 


252  CONSERVATIVE    REFOBMATIOK. 

there  jriven  as  the  authentic  Confession  in  antithesis  to  all  the 
editions  of  it  in  which  there  were  variations  large  or  small. 

In  the  Convention  of  the  Evangelical  (Lutheran)  Princes  at 
JsTaumberg  in  1561,  among  whom  were  two  of  the  original 
signers,  this  edition  was  declared  to  be  authentic,  and  was 
again  solemnly  subscribed,  and  the  seals  of  the  signers 
appended.  ^N'othing  could  seem  to  be  more  certainly  fixed 
than  that  this  original  edition  of  Melanchtbon  presented  the 
Confession  in  its  most  perfect  form,  just  as  it  was  actually 
delivered  in  the  Diet. 

But  unhappy  causes,  connected  largely  with  ^lelanchthon's 
later  attempts  to  produce  unity  by  skilful  phrases  and  skilful 
concealments,  led  to  a  most  groundless  suspicion,  that  even  in 
the  original  edition  there  might  be  variations  from  the  very 
letter  of  the  Confession  as  actually  delivered.  That  there  were 
any  changes  in  meaning  was  not  even  in  those  times  of  morbid 
jealousy  pretended,  but  a  strong  anxiety  Avas  felt  to  secure  a 
copy  of  the  Confession  perfectly  corresponding  in  words,  in 
letters,  and  in  points,  with  the  original.  The  original  of  the 
Latin  had  been  taken  by  Charles  with  him,  but  the  German 
original  w^as  still  supposed  to  be  in  the  archives  at  Mentz. 
Joachim  11. ,  in  1566,  directed  Coelestinus  and  Zochius  to 
make  a  copy  from  the  Mentz  original.  Their  copy  was 
inserted  in  the  Brandenburg  Body  of  Doctrine  in  1572. 

In  1576,  Augustus  of  Saxony  obtained  from  the  Elector  of 
Mentz  a  copy  of  the  same  document,  and  from  this  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  as  it  appears  in  the  Book  of  Concord  was 
printed.  Wherever  the  Book  of  Concord  was  received,  Me- 
lanchthon's  original  edition  of  the  German  was  displaced, 
though  the  corresponding  edition  of  the  Latin  has  been 
retained.  Thus,  half  a  century  after  its  universal  recognition, 
the  first  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  German  gave 
way  to  what  was  believed  to  be  a  true  transcript  of  the 
original. 

Two  hundred  years  after  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  a 
discovery  was  conmiunicated  to  the  theological  world  by  Pfaff, 
which  has  reinstated  Melanchtbon 's  original  edition.  Pfaff 
discovered  that  the  document  in  the  archives  at  Mentz  was 


DiriSIOKS   OF  THE   CONFESSION.  253 

not  the  original,  but  a  copy  merely,  and  the  labors  of  Weber 
have  demonstrated  that  this  copy  has  no  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  made  from  the  original,  but  is  a  transcript  from  one  of  the 
less-finished  copies  of  the  Confession,  made  before  it  had 
assumed,  under  Melanchthon's  hand,  the  exact  shape  in  which 
it  was  actually  presented.  While,  therefore,  the  ordinary  edi- 
tion of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  one  found  in  the  Book 
of  Concord,  and  from  which  the  current  translations  of  the 
Confession  have  been  made,  does  not  differ  in  meaning  at  all 
from  the  original  edition  of  Melanchthon,  it  is,  nevertheless, 
not  so  perfect  in  style,  and  where  they  differ,  not  so  clear. 
The  highest  critical  authority,  then,  both  German  and  Latin, 
is  that  of  Melanchthon's  own  original  editions.* 

The  current  edition  of  the  German,  and  the  earlier  edition 
of  Melanchthon,  are  verbally  identical  in  the  larger  part  of 
the  articles,  both  of  doctrine  and  of  abuses.  The  only  differ- 
ence is,  that  Melanchthon's  edition  is  occasionally  somewhat 
fuller,  especially  on  the  abuses,  is  more  perfectly  parallel  with 
the  Latin  at  a  few  points,  and  occasionally  more  finished  in 
style.  When  the  question  between  them  has  a  practical  inter- 
est, it  is  simply  because  Melanchthon's  edition  expresses  in 
terms,  or  wdth  greater  clearness,  what  is  simply  implied,  or 
less  explicitly  stated  in  the  other. 

The  structure  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  bears  traces  of 
the  mode  of  its  growth  out  of  the  Articles  which  formed  its 
eiroundwork.     It  contains,  as  its  two  fundamental 

*  .    .  .  p      T  ,  Structure    and 

parts,  a  positive  assertion  of  the  most  necessary  Divisions  of  the 
truths,  and  a  nes-ation  of  the  most  serious  abuses.  Augsburg  con- 
It  comprises  :  I.  The  Preface  ;  11.  Twenty-one 
Principal  Articles  of  Faith;  III.  An  Epilogue-Prologue, 
which  unites  the  first  part  with  the  second,  and  makes  a  grace- 
ful transition  from  the  one  to  the  other;  IV.  The  Second  great 
Division,  embracing  Seven  Articles  on  Abuses  ;  Y.  The  Epi- 
logue, followed  by  the  Subscriptions. 

The  Articles  are  not  arranged  as  a  whole  with  reference  to 
a  system.     They  may  be  classified  thus  : 

^  For  the  facts  here  presented,  compare  Weber  Krit.  Geschichte  :  Hase,  Lib. 
Symb.,  Francke  do.  KoUner  Symb  ,  Luther.  Kirch.,  342. 


254  COXSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

I.  The  Confessedly  Catholic,  or  Universal  Christian  Art- 
icles,—  those  which  Christendom,  Greek  and  Roman,  have 
confessed,  especially  in  the  Apostles'  and  iTicene  Creed.  These 
were  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  (I),  the  Incarnation  (III),  the 
Second  Coming  of  Christ,  the  General  Resurrection,  the  Eter- 
nity of  Rewards  and  Punishment  (XYII),  the  Validity  of  Ad- 
ministration by  Unworthy  Ministers  (VIII),  the  Offer  of  Grace 
in  Baptism,  and  the  Right  of  Children  to  it  (IX),  Church  Gov- 
ernment (XIV),  Civil  Government  (XVI),  Free  Will  (XVIII), 
and  the  Cause  of  Sin  (XIX). 

II.  The  Protestant  Articles,  —  those  opposed  to  the  errors 
in  doctrine,  and  the  abuses  in  usage,  of  the  Papal  part  of  the 
Church  of  the  West.  To  this  the  Confession,  in  its  whole 
argument,  based  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  a  supreme  rule 
of  faith,  was  opposed.  But  more  particularly  to  the  Pelagian- 
ism  of  Rome,  in  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  (Art.  II) :  its  cor- 
ruption of  the  doctrine  of  Justification  (Art.  IV) :  its  doctrine 
of  Merit  in  Works  (Art.  VI,  XX),  of  the  Ministerial  Office,  as 
an  Order  of  Priests  (Art.  V),  of  Transubstantiation  (Art.  X), 
of  Auricular  Confession  (Art.  XI),  of  Repentance  (x\rt.  XII), 
of  the  Opus  Operatum  in  Sacraments  (Art.  XIII),  of  Church 
Order  (Art.  XX),  of  the  true  nature  of  the  Christian  Church 
(Art.  VII),  and  of  the  Worship  of  Saints  (Art.  XXI). 

The  entire  second  part  was  devoted  to  the  argument  against 
the  Abuses  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  especially  in  regard  to  Com- 
munion in  One  Kind  (Abus.,  Art.  I),  Celibacy  of  the  Priest- 
hood (Art.  II),  the  Mass  (Art.  Ill),  Confession  (IV),  Human 
Traditions  (V),  Monastic  Vows  (VI),  Church  Powder,  and  espe- 
cially the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  (VII). 

III.  The  Evangelical  Articles,  or  parts  of  Articles,  —  those 
articles  which  especially  assert  the  doctrines  which  are  con- 
nected most  directly  with  the  Gospel  in  its  essential  character 
as  tidings  of  redemption  to  lost  man,  —  the  great  doctrines  of 
grace.  These  articles  are  specially  those  which  teach  the  fall 
of  man,  the  radical  corruption  of  his  nature,  his  exposure  to 
eternal  death,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  regeneration  (Art. 
II) ;  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  the  saving  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (Art.  Ill);  justification  by  faith  alone  (IV),  the   true 


THE  AUGSBURG   CONFESSIOX—ITS   VALUE.     255 

character  of  repentance,  or  conversion  (XII) ;  and  tlie  impo- 
tence of  man's  own  will  to  eftect  it  (XVIII). 

IV.  The  Conservative  Articles,  the  Articles  which  set  forth 
DISTINCTIVE  Biblical  doctrines  which  the  Lutheran  Church 
holds  in  peculiar  purity,  over  against  the  corruptions  of  llo- 
manism,  the  extravagance  of  Radicalism,  the  perversions  of 
Rationalism,  or  the  imperfect  development  of  theology.  Such 
are  the  doctrines  of  the  proper  inseparability  of  the  two  natures 
of  Christ,  both  as  to  time  and  space  (Art.  Ill),  the  objective 
force  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments  (Art.  V),  the  reality  of  the 
presence  of  both  the  heavenly  and  earthly  elements  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  (Art.  X),  the  true  value  of  Private,  that  is,  of 
individual  Absolution  (Art.  XI),  the  genuine  character  of  Sac- 
ramental grace  (Art.  XIII),  the  true  medium  in  regard  to 
the  rites  of  the  Church  (Art.  XV),  the  freedom  of  the  will 
(XVIII),  and  the  proper  doctrine  concerning  the  Cause  of  Sin 
(XIX).  On  all  these  points  the  Augsburg  Confession  presents 
views  which,  either  in  matter  or  measure,  are  opposed  to  ex- 
tremes, which  claim  to  be  Protestant  and  Evangelical.  Pela- 
gianizing.  Rationalistic,  Fatalistic,  Fanatical,  unhistorical  ten- 
dencies, which,  more  or  less  unconsciously,  have  revealed  them- 
selves, both  in  Romanism  and  in  various  types  of  nominally 
Evangelical  Protestantism,  are  all  met  and  condemned  by  the 
letter,  tenor,  or  spirit  of  these  articles. 

Through  the  whole  flows  a  spirit  of  earnest  faith  and  of  pure 
devotion.  The  body  of  the  Confession  shows  the  hand  of  con- 
summate theologians,  the  soul  reveals  the  inmost  life  of 
humble,  earnest  Christians. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  has  incalculable  value  as  an  abid- 
ing witness  against  the  Errors  of  the  Roman  Cath-  The  Angsi.urg 
olic  Church.     The  old  true  Catholic  Church  was  confession  :    its 

.    .  riM         value.*    1.  As  a 

almost  lost  in  pride,  avarice,  and  superstition.    The  protest    against 
great  labor  of  the  body  of  the  clergy  Avas  to  defend  ««'"^°'«"^- 

*  Interpretation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  Commentaries,  Notes  and 
Sermons. 

Histoire  de  la  Confess.  d'Auxpourg  (Chytraeus)  par  le  Cop.  Anvers  1582.  p. 
107-114.  The  notes  are  occupied  with  the  citations,  and  historical  allusions  of 
the  Confession. 

An  Harmony  of  the  Confessions,  etc. ''There  are   added   in  the   ende   verie 


256  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  errors  bj  wliich  they  were  enriched.  Two  false  doctrines 
were  of  especial  value  to  this  end:  The  first,  that  the  Church 
tradition  is  part  of  the  Rule  of  Faith;  the  second,  that  good 
works  can  merit  of  God.     With  both  the  formal  and  material 

short  notes  in  which  both  the  obscure  things  are  made  plaine,  etc."  Cambridge, 
1586.  p.  593,  ad  fin. 

Mentzer  :  Exegesis  Augustanae  Confossionis  (1618)  Frankfort,  1690.  Still 
retains  its  position  as  a  work  of  the  highest  value. — Calovius  :  Criticus  Sacer 
vel  Commentar.  in  ^Vugust.  Confess.  Lips.  1646.  4to.  pp.  920.  Do.  Theologia  sec. 
tenorem  August.  Confess.,  etc.  4to.  pp.  1000.  These  two  works  only  get  as  far  as 
the  first  article  of  the  Confession. — Altino  H.  :  Exegesis  Logica  et  Theologica 
August.  Confess.  Amstelod.  1647.  5-114. — Goebel  :  Augustana  Fidei  Confess. 
das  ist  die  xxi  Artikel.  .  erklaret.  Frankf.  a.  M.  1654,  Fol  pp.  1400.  Under  the 
title  of  Sermons,  an  elaborate  Commentary  on  the  Confession.  — Calovius  :  Syn- 
opsis Controversiarum  etc.  secund.  seriein  Articul.  August.  Confess.  Wittenberg, 
1685,  4to.  pp.  1104.  Lutherus  Redivivus.  Halle  1697.  —  Hoffman  G.  :  Commen- 
tarius  in  August.  Confessionem.  Tubing.  1717.  4to.  pp.  400.  A  work  of  great 
value.  The  portions  of  the  other  symbols  parallel  with  the  diiFerent  articles  of 
the  Augs.  Confess,  are  brought  together;  the  Wirteraberg  Confession  is  also 
brouglit  into  the  harmony.  —  Cyprian  :  Historia  der  Augspurg.  Confession.  Gotha, 
1730.  p.  208-227.   Specimens  of  a  commentary  on  the  i.  xiii.  xxii.  xxviii.  articles. 

—  Von  Seelen  :  Stromata  Lutherana  sive  var.  Script,  ad.  .  .  Augustan.  Confess. 
On  the  V.  and  vi.  art.  on  abuses,  xii.  On  the  citations  of  the  Fathers,  xvi. — 
Carpzovii  :  Isagoge  in  L.  Eccl.  Luth.  Symb.  Lips.  1675.  95-763.  After  the  lapse 
of  nearly  two  centuries,  still  the  best  of  the  eclectic  works  on  the  symbols.  The 
Confession  and  Apology  are  treated  together,  cf.  Fabricii  Histor.  Biblioth.  iv. 
264.  —  Pfaff  :  Eccles.  Evang.  Libri  Symb.  Loca  diflicilia  explanavit  et  vindi- 
cavit.  Tubing.  1730.  p.  28-86.  The  notes  are  very  brief,  and  very  valuable.  — 
AValch:  Introductio  in  L.  S.  .  .  observat.  histor.  et  theolog.  illus.  1732.  157-408. 
Classic,  among  the  older  works. — Reinecii  :  Concordia — adjectis,  locis,  etc. 
notisque  aliis.  Lips.  1735.  7-74.  The  notes  mostly  critical,  or  connected  with 
the  scriptural  and  patristic  quotations  in  the  Confession.  — Boerneri:  Institu- 
tiones  Theologiae  Symbolicae.  Lipsiae,  1751. — Baumoarten  :  Erleuterungen. 
2d.  ed.  1761.     Compendious  and  rich.  —  Walchii  :  Breviarium  (1765,)  p.  75-116. 

—  Semleri:  Apparatus  (1775,)  p.  42-127.  Tittmann  :  Institut.  Symbol.  (1811) 
p.  91-134. — Tittmann:  Die  Augsburg.  Confession:  Confessio  Fidei.  Dresden 
1830  Winer  (1825.)  —  Schopff:  Die  S.  B.  mit  historischen  Einleit.  kurz.  An- 
merk.  u.  ausfiihrlichern  Erorterungen.  Dresden,  1826.  24-103. — Yelin:  Ver- 
Buch  (1829)  p.  70-77. —ScHOTT  C.  IL  :  Die  Augsb.  Conf.  mit  historisch.  Einleit. 
u.  erlauter.  Anmerkungcn.  Lcipz.  1829.  The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession. 
To  which  is  prefixed  a  historical  Introduction  to  the  same,  by  C.  H.  Schott.  New 
York,  1848. — Weder:  Conf.  August,  animadversionibus,  historicis,  exegeticia, 
dogmaticis  et  criticis.  Halis  1830,  4to.  —  Spieker  :  Confessio  fidei.  .  .  varii  gen- 
eris animadversionibus  instruxit.  Berolini  1830. —  Tittmann:  De  summ.  prin- 
cip.  A.  Conf.  1830.  — LocHMAN  G.,  A.  M.  The  History,  Doctrine,  etc.,  of  the 
Evung.  Luth.  Church.     Part  II,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  explanatory  notes 


ITS  POLITICAL    VALUE.  257 

principles  of  the  Cburch  corrupted,  what  could  result  but  tlie 
wreck  of  much  that  is  most  precious  in  Christianity  ?  The 
protest  needed  then  is  needed  still.  The  Roman  Church  has 
indeed  formally  abrogated  some  of  the  worst  abuses  which 
found  their  justification  in  her  false  doctrines ;  the  pressure 
of  Protestant  thinking  forces,  or  the  light  of  Protestant  science, 
wins  her  children  to  a  Christianity  better  than  her  theories ; 
but  the  root  of  the  old  evil  remains  —  the  old  errors  are  not 
given  up,  and  cannot  be.  Rome  once  committed,  is  committed 
beyond  redemption.  It  needs  but  propitious  circumstances  to 
brino-  up  any  of  her  errors  in  all  their  ancient  force.  The  fun- 
damental principle  of  infallibility,  the  pride  of  consistency,  the 
power  w^hich  these  doctrines  give  her,  make  it  certain  that 
they  will  not  be  abandoned.  Against  all  of  Rome's  many 
errors,  and  pre-eminently  against  those  doctrines  which  are  in 
some  way  related  to  them  all,  the  Augsburg  Confession  must 
continue  to  hold  up  the  pure  light  of  the  sole  Rule  of  Faith, 
and  of  its  great  central  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. "^ 

The  Augsburg  Confession  had,  and  has  great  value,  in 
view  of  the  sound  political  principles  it  asserted  and  guaran- 
teed. Signed  by  the  princes  and  free  cities,  it  was  a  sovereign 
ratification,  and  guarantee  of  the  rights  of  the  2,1.  itsroiitkai 
Church  and  of  the  individual  Christian  in  the  '"'"''• 
State.  It  asserted  the  independence  on  the  State  of  the 
Church,  as  a  Church,  the  distinctness  of  the  spheres  of  the 
Church  and  State,  the  rights  of  the  State  over  the  Chris- 
tian, as  a  subject,  the  Christian's   duty  to   the    State,  as   a 

and  remarks.  Harrisburg,  1818  — Schmucker  S.  S.,  D.  D.  Elements  of  Popular 
Theology,  with  special  reference  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  as  avowed 
before  the  Diet  at  Augsburg  in  1530.  Andover,  183  J.  Do.  Lutheran  Manual,  or 
the  Augsburg  Confession  illustrated  and  sustained.  Philadelphia,  1855.  —  Haz- 
Enus  E.  L.  :  The  Doctrinal  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  notes  ;  in 
the  Discipline  etc.  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  South  Carolina.  Balti- 
more, 1841.  —  Beck:  Sammlung  Symbol.  BUcher  —  Evangelisch.  Reform.  Kirche. 
2d  ed.  Neustadt,  1845.  ii.  353-406.  —  Francke:  Libri  Symb.  Eccles.  Lutheranae. 
Lipsiae  1847,  9-50. —The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  Philada.  1855.  (for 
Luth.  Board.)  A  few  valuable  notes  by  Prof.  Schaeffer.  —  Sermons  by  Bakius, 
Goebel,  Tholuck,  Schleiermacher,  Harms,  and  Sartorius. 
*  Fikenscher.  Gesch.  d.  R.  z.  Augsb.  208.  Kollnku  ii.  395. 
17 


258  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

subject,  and  the  supremacy  of  God's  law  and  of  the  demands 
of  conscience  over  all  unrighteous  enactments  of  man.  It 
defined  in  brief,  yet  ample  statements,  the  entire  relation  of 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  power.*  It  overthrew  the  conception 
of  the  Church  as  a  great  world-dominating  power  —  taught 
the  obligation  of  legitimate  civil  ordinances,  the  lawfulness 
of  Christians  bearing  civil  office,  the  right  of  the  State  to 
demand  oaths,  to  enact  penalties,  and  to  v/age  "just  wars," 
and  the  obligation  of  the  Christian  citizen  to  bear  part  in 
them.  It  asserts  that  "God's  command  is  to  be  more  resrarded 
than  all  usage  —  that  custom  introduced  contrary  to  God's 
command  is  not  to  be  approved."  "Christians  should  render 
obedience  to  magistrates  and  their  laws  in  all  things,"  "save 
only  those  when  they  command  any  sin,  for  then  the}'  must 
rather  obey  God  than  men."  It  overthrew  monasticism  and 
enforced  celibacy,  those  weaknesses  of  the  State ;  curbed  the 
insolence  of  Pope,  Bishop  and  Clergy,  and  restored  the  normal 
and  divine  relations  of  man  to  man,  of  subject  to  ruler,  of 
Church  to  State,  of  God's  law  to  human  law,  of  loyalty  to  the 
rights  of  conscience.  The  Lutheran  Church  gives  to  every 
State  into  which  she  enters,  her  great  voucher  of  fidelity  to 
the  principles  on  which  alone  free  governments  can  stand. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  was  exquisitely  adapted  to  all  its 
3  Its  value  as  objects,  as  a  confession  of  faith,  and  a  defence  of 
a  confession  and  it.  In  it  thc  vcry  heart  of  the  Gospel  beat  again, 
apoogj.  -j-^  o-ave  oro^anic  beino;  to  what  had  hitherto  been 

but  a  tendency,  and  knit  together  great  nationalities  in  the 
lioliest  bond  by  which  men  can  be  held  in  association.  It  en- 
abled the  Evangelical  princes,  as  a  body,  to  throw  their  moral 
weight  for  truth  into  the  empire.  These  were  the  starting 
points  of  its  great  work  and  glory  among  men.  To  it,  under 
{^od,  more^  than  to  any  other  cause,  the  whole  Protestant 
world  owes  civil  and  religious  freedom.  Under  it,  as  a  banner, 
the  pride  of  Rome  was  broken,  and  her  armies  destroyed.  It 
is  the  symbol  of  pure  Protestantism,  as  the  three  General 
Creeds  are  symbols  of  that  developing  Catholicity  to  which 
genuine  Protestantism  is  related,  as    the  maturing   fruit   is 

*  Art.  vii.,  xvi.,  xsviii. 


ITS   VALUE  AS  A    GUIDE   TO    CHRIST.  259 

related  to  the  blossom.  To  it  the  eyes  of  all  deep  thinkers  have 
been  turned,  as  to  a  star  of  hope  amid  the  internal  strifes  of 
nominal  I'rotestantism.  Gieseler,  the  great  Reformed  Church 
historian,  says:*  "If  the  question  be,  Which,  among  all 
Protestant  Confessions,  is  best  adapted  for  forming  the  founda- 
tion of  a  union  among  Protestant  Churches,  we  declare  our- 
selves unreservedly  for  the  Augsburg  Confession."  But  no 
genuine  union  can  ever  be  formed  upon  the  basis  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  except  by  a  hearty  consent  in  its  whole  faith, 
an  honest  reception  of  all  its  statements  of  doctrine  in  the 
sense  which  the  statements  bear  in  the  Confession  itself.  If 
there  be  those  who  would  forgive  Rome  her  unrepented  sins, 
they  must  do  it  in  the  face  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  If 
there  be  those  who  would  consent  to  a  truce  at  least  with 
Rationalism  or  Fanaticism,  they  must  begin  their  work  by 
making  men  forget  the  great  Confession,which  refused  its  covert 
to  them  from  the  beo-innino;. 

With  the  Augsburg  Confession  begins  the  clearly  4  J^^  ^.^j^^  ^ 
recognized  life  of  the  Evangelical  Protestant  Church,  '^  ^''"♦'■<;  "f  sr^""^ 
the  purified  Church  of  the  West,  on  which  her 
enemies  fixed  the  name  Lutheran.  With  this  Confession  her 
most  self-sacrificing  struggles  and  greatest  achievements  are 
connected.  It  is  hallowed  by  the  prayers  of  Luther,  among 
the  most  ardent  that  ever  burst  from  the  human  heart ;  it  is 
made  sacred  by  the  tears  of  Melanchthon,  among  the  tenderest 
which  ever  fell  from  the  eye  of  man.  It  is  embalmed  in  the 
living,  dying,  and  undying  devotion  of  the  long  line  of  the 
heroes  of  our  faith,  w^ho,  through  the  world  which  was  not 
worthy  of  them,  passed  to  their  eternal  rest.  The  greatest 
masters  in  the  realm  of  intellect  have  defended  it  with  their 
labors ;  the  greatest  princes  have  protected  it  from  the 
sword,  by  the  sword ;  and  the  blood  of  its  martyrs,  speaking 
better  things  than  vengeance,  pleads  for  ever,  with  the  blood 
of  Him  whose  all-availing  love,  whose  sole  and  all-atoning 
sacrifice,  is  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  its  witness. 

But  not  alone  on  the  grand  field  of  historical     5.  it,  value  ;« 
events  has  its  power  been  shown.     It  led  to  God's  agnidetoci.nHt. 

"*  Theolog.  Stud.  u.  Kritik,  1833,  ii,  1142.     Schenkel  takes  the  same  view. 


260  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

^\^ord  millions,  who  have  lived  and  died  unknown  to  the  great 
world.  In  the  humblest  homes  and  luimblcst  hearts  it  has 
opened,  through  ages,  the  spring  of  heavenly  influence.  It 
proclaimed  the  all-sufliciency  of  Christ's  merits,  the  justifying 
power  of  faith  in  Him  ;  and  this  shed  heavenly  light,  peace 
and  joy,  on  the  darkest  problems  of  the  burdened  heart.  "  It 
remains  forever,"  says  Gieseler,  "  a  light  to  guide  in  the  right 
path  those  who  are  struggling  in  error."  It  opened  the  way 
to  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ  ;  and  if  it  has 
seemed  to  divide,  for  a  little  time,  it  has  divided  only  to  con- 
solidate, at  length,  the  whole  Church  under  Christ's  sole  rule, 
and  in  the  one  pure  faith. 

Its  history,  in  its  full  connections,  is  the  history  of  the  cen- 

6.  Its  value  for  tuHcs  mldway  iu  the  fourth  of  Avhich  we  stand, 
the  future.  ^^^j  ^j^g  futurc  of  thc  Church,  which  is  the  future 

of  the  race,  can  unfold  itself  from  the  present,  only  in  the 
power  of  the  life  which  germinates  from  the  great  principles 
which  the  Augsburg  Confession  planted  in  the  world. 

Can  we  honorably  bear  the  name  of  Evangelical  Lutherans, 

The  Au-sburg  ^lO^Gstly  profcss  to  receivc  the  Augsburg  Confession 
Confession"  as  a  as  our  Crccd,  aud  honestly  claim  to  be  part  of  the 
fn7olVedi'na'r!girt  Church  of  our  fathers,  w^hile  we  reject,  or  leave 
reception  of  it?*     ^pg^  ^^  rcjcctiou,  parts  of  the  doctrine  whose  recep- 

*  Works  on  Dogma/ics,  and  the  history  of  Dogmatics,  of  value  in  the  interpretation 
or  defence  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  in  illustration  of  the  theology  based 
upon  or  deviating  from  it. 

MelaxNchthonis  :  Opera  Dogmatica  in  the  Corpus  Reformatorum,  vol.  xxi.- 
XXIII.  a.  Loci  Theologici  (1521).  b.  Examen  ordinandorum.  c.  Catechesis 
puerilis.  d  Explicatio  Symboli  Niceni.  e.  Repetitio  Augtistanae  Confessionis 
sive  Confessio  doctrinae  Saxonicarum  ecclesiarum. — Cf.  Galle:  Melanchthon 
(1840)  and  Augusti'a,  Edit,  of  the  Loci  (1821),  for  Melanchthon's  changes  in  doc- 
trine. —  Flaccii  :  a.  Cntalogus  Testium  veritatis  (1556).  h.  Centurise  Magdebur- 
gen.'scs.  c.  Clavis.  d.  Scholia  in  N.  Test. —  Chemnitz  :  a.  de  vera  et  substantiali 
prajsentia.  b.  de  duabus  naturis.  c.  Loci  Theologici.  d.  Examen  Concil.  Trident. 
e.  Theologiae  Jesuitic,  praecipua  capit.  —  IIutter  :  Compendium  Locor.  Theo- 
logic  (IGIO)  ed.  Schutze  1772.  —  Osiander  L:  Enchiridion  Controvers.  (1G14.)  — 
HuNNius  N:  Epitome  Credendorum  ( 1625).  —  Gerhard  J  :  a.  Loci  Theologici 
(1610)  (Cotta).  b.  Confessio  Catholica  (1633). —  Calovius:  a.  Apodixis  (1684). 
b.  Synopsis  Controvcrsiarum  (1653).  c.  Mataeologia  papistica  (1647).  d. 
Biblia  lllustrata.  —  Koenio  :  Theologia  positiva  (1664).  —  Quenstedt  :  Theo- 
logia    didactico-polemica    (1685).  —  Bkchmann:     Adnotationes    in    Compendium 


THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION  AS  A    CREED.     261 

tion  gave  our  Church  her  separate  being  and  distinctive  name, 
and  led  to  the  formation  of  her  Confession,  and  which  are 
embodied  in  its  articles,  and  guarded  in  their  condemnatory 
clauses,  and  which  our  whole  Church,  for  centuries,  in  every 
official  act,  maintained  as  principal  and  fundamental  ?  This 
is  the  real  question.  All  others  are  side  issues.  This  question, 
once  agitated,  can  never  be  laid  till  it  is  fairly  settled  ;  and  to 
it,  every  conscientious  man,  every  lover  of  our  Church,  should 
bend  his  prayerful  thoughts.  A  testimony  bearing  upon  the 
great  question,  a  testimony  of  the  highest  importance,  and 
entitled  to  be  heard  first  of  all,  is  the  Confession  itself,  about 
whose  claims  so  much  is  now  said. 

In  what  light  is  the  Augsburg  Confession  regarded  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  itself?  This  is  a  primary  question  for 
an  honest  man  Avho  thinks  of  subscribing  it  :  for  if  the  Con- 
fession itself,  in  its  origin,  its  history,  its  letter,  protests  against 
certain  ideas,  it  would  seem  that  its  witness  against  them  is 
of  more  value  than  any  other.     Look,  then,  at  a  few  facts : 

I.  The  Confession  exhibited  the  one,  undivided  faith  of  the 
entire  Lutheran  Church  in  the  Empire.  It  was  not  the  work 
of  men  without  authority  to  represent  the  Church  ;  but  was 

HuLteri  (1690).  —  Buddeus:  a.  Theologia  Dogmatica  (1723).  b.  De  veritate 
religionisevangelicae  (1729).  c  Keligions-Streitigkeiten  1724.  c?.  Isagoge  (1727). 
—  ScHMiD  J.  A.:  Breviarium  theolog.  polemic.  (1710). — Lange:  Oeconomiasalutis 
(1728).  —  Reinhard  L.  Theologia  Dogmat.  (1733).  —  WalchJ.  G.  a.  Dogmatische 
Gottesgelahr.  (1749).  b.  Polemische  (1752).  c.  Religions-Streitigkeiten  (1724). — 
Carpov.  (1737). — Baumgarten  S.  J.  a.  Evangelische  Glaubenslehre  (1759).  A, 
Tbeologisch.  Streitigkeiten.  (1762)  c.  Religions-Parteyen  (1766). — Moshkim  : 
a.  Streit-Theologie  (1763).  6.  Th«olog.  Dogmat.  (1758). — Carpzov  J.  B.  Jr. 
Liber  doctrinalis  (1767).  —  Walch  C.  W.  F.  a.  Geschichte  der  Lutherischen  Re- 
ligion (1753).  b.  Bibliotheca  Symbolica  (1770).  —  Semler:  Institutio  (1774). — 
Doeuerlein  (1780).  —  Seiler:  a.  Theolog.  dogmat.  polemica  (1780).  6.  Doctrin. 
Christian.  Compend.  (1779).  —  MoRUS :  a.  Epitome  Theol.  Christianae  (1789).  b. 
Coramentarius  in  Epitom.  (1797).  —  Beck:  (1801).  —  Storr  &  Flatt  :  Dog- 
matik  (1803).  —  Reinhard  F.  V.  (1801).  —  Sciiott  (1811).  —  Bretschneider: 
a.  Dogmatik  (1814).  b.  Entwickelung  (1804). — Wegscheider  :  Institutioned 
(1815).  —  Twesten  (1826).  —  Knapp  (1827).  —  Nitzsch  (1829).  —  (Schuman) : 
Melanchthon  Redivivus,  1837. — Hase  :  a.  Dogmatik  (1826).  i.  Hutterus  Red- 
ivivus  (1829-1868).  — Klein:  (1822)  Ed.  Lange  (1835).  —  Schmid  H.  Dogmatik 
d.  Evang.  Luth.  Kirche,  (1843-1863).  —  Martensen  (1855). —Sartorius  (1861). 
—  Thomasius  (1863).— Philippi  (1863).  — Hofman  (1860).  —  Kahnis  (1868).— 
luthardt  (11 


262  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION'. 

the  voice  of  all  the  Churches.  Its  groundwork  was  laid  by 
Luther  ;  niaterials  were  brought  together  by  the  great  theo- 
logians of  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  — by  Brentius,  Jonas, 
Spalatin,  and  others,  who  carefully  examined  and  tested  each 
other's  work.  The  matchless  hand  of  Melanchthon  was  em- 
ployed in  giving  the  most  perfect  form,  the  most  absolutely 
finished  statement  of  the  faith  ;  the  Confession  was  subjected 
to  the  careful  examination  of  Luther,  by  whom  it  was  heartily 
approved.  Melanchthon's  own  account  is  :  "I  brought  to- 
gether the  heads  of  the  Confession,  embracing  almost  the  sum 
of  the  doctrine  of  our  Churches.  I  took  nothing  on  myself.  In 
the  presence  of  the  Princes  and  the  officials,  every  topic  was 
discussed  by  our  preachers,  sentence  hy  sentence.  A  copy  of  the 
entire  Confession  was  then  sent  to  Luther,  who  WTOte  to  the 
Princes  that  he  had  read,  and  that  he  approved  the  Confes- 
sion." Every  position  of  the  Confession  had  been  pondered 
again  and  again,  had  been  tried  in  the  crucible  of  the  Word, 
had  been  experienced  in  its  practical  power  in  the  life,  and  had 
been  maintained  against  sharp  attacks,  by  our  great  Confessors, 
as  well  as  by  thousands  of  humble  and  earnest  private  Chris- 
tians. For  the  immediate  work  of  its  preparation,  there  were 
at  least  four  months.  It  was  on  the  11th  of  May  the  Confes- 
sion was  lirst  sent  by  the  Elector  to  Luther,  and  it  was  not  read 
in  Diet  till  the  25th  of  June ;  so  that  six  weeks  elapsed  between 
the  time  of  its  substantial  completeness  and  of  its  presentation. 
Every  touch  after  that  time  was  the  result  of  striving  after 
absolute  finish  of  style  and  perfection  of  handling.  ]N'ever  was 
a  Confession  more  thoroughly  prepared,  more  carefully  and 
prayerfully  weighed,  more  heartily  accepted. 

II.  As  various  kingdoms,  states,  and  cities  embraced  the 
faith  of  God's  word,  as  our  Church  had  unfolded  it,  they 
accepted  this  Confession  as  their  own,  and  were  known  as 
Evangelical  Lutherans  because  they  so  accepted  it.  The  Church 
was  known  as  the  Church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
that  great  document  became  a  part  of  the  defining  terms  of  the 
Church.  The  Lutheran  Church  was  that  which  unreservedly 
held  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  historical  sense. 

III.  The  arguments  on  which  men  rely  now  to  shake  the 


THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION  AS  A    CREED.     263 

faith  of  the  Church,  had  all  hcen  used  before  the  Confession 
was  prepared.  In  fact,  the  Rationalistic  argument  had  been 
brought  out  with  far  more  vigor  and  plausibility  than  usually 
attend  it  now,  and  those  who  renew  the  unsuccessful  attempts 
of  the  original  opponents  of  our  faith,  might  with  advantage  to 
their  cause  study  those  old  errorists.  N^othing  has  been  added 
to  the  argument  of  that  day  in  the  great  substantial  points  on 
either  side.  After  the  learning  and  insinuating  statement  of 
(Ecolampadius,  whose  work,  Erasmus  said,  "  might,  if  possi- 
ble, deceive  the  very  elect,"  and  which  Melanchthon  considered 
worthy  of  a  reply — after  the  unflinching  audacity  of  Carlstadt, 
and  the  plausible  argument  of  Zwingle,  which  was  so  shallow, 
and  therefore  seemed  so  clear,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  feeble 
echo  of  their  arguments,  which  is  now  alone  heard  in  the  main- 
tenance of  their  views,  would  shake  our  fathers  were  they  liv- 
ing. The  Scripture  argument  stands  now  Avhere  it  stood  then, 
and  the  Word,  which  was  too  strong  for  Luther's  human 
doubts  then,  would  prove  too  strong  for  them  now.  It  is  not 
the  argument  which  has  changed  :  it  is  as  overwhelming  now 
as  then  ;  but  the  singleness  of  faith,  the  simple-hearted  trust 
— these  have  too  often  yielded  to  the  Rationalizing  spirit  of  a 
vain  and  self-trusting  generation.  If  our  fathers,  with  their 
old  spirit,  were  living  now,  we  would  have  to  stand  with  them 
on  their  confession,  or  be  obliged  to  stand  alone.  Luther 
would  sing  now,  as  he  sung  then : 

"The  Word  they  shall  permit  remain, 
And  not  a  thank  have  for  it." 

lY.  The  very  name  of  Augsburg,  which  tells  us  where  our 
Confession  was  uttered,  reminds  us  of  the  nature  of  the  obli- 
gations of  those  who  profess  to  receive  it.  Two  other  Con- 
fessions were  brought  to  that  city  :  the  Confession  of  Zwingle, 
and  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession  :  the  former  openly  opposed 
to  the  faith  of  our  Church,  especially  in  regard  to  the  Sacra- 
ments ;  the  latter  ambiguous  and  evasive  on  some  of  the  vital 
points  of  the  same  doctrine.  These  two  Confessions  are  now 
remembered  only  because  of  the  historical  glory  shed  by  ours 
over  everything  which  came   into  any  relation  to   it.      But 


264  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

can  it  be,  that  the  doctrine  which  arrayed  itself  against  the 
Augsburg  Confession  at  Augsburg  can  be  the  doctrine  of  that 
Confession,  or  capable  of  harmonizing  with  it  anywhere  else  ; 
that  Avhat  w^as  not  Lutheranism  there  is  Lutheranism  here  ; 
that  what  was  Lutheranism  then  is  not  Lutheranism  now  ; 
that  Zwingle  or  Hedio  of  Strasburg  could,  without  a  change 
of  views,  honestly  subscribe  the  Confession  against  which  they 
had  arrayed  themselves,  that  very  Confession,  the  main  drift 
of  some  of  whose  most  important  Articles  was  to  teach  the 
truth  these  men  denied,  and  to  condemn  the  errors  these  men 
fostered,  or  that  men,  who  hold  now  what  they  held  then,  can 
now  honestly  do  what  they  would  not  and  could  not  do  then  ? 
What  could  not  be  done  then,  cannot  be  done  now.  A  prin- 
ciple is  as  little  affected  by  the  lapse  of  three  hundred  years  as 
of  one  year.  It  cannot  be,  that,  consistently  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  fathers,  consistently  with  Church  unity  with 
them,  consistently  with  the  Church  name  which  their  prin- 
ciples and  their  faith  defined,  men  holding  Romish,  or  Ration- 
alistic, or  Zwinglian  error,  should  pretend  to  receive  the  Con- 
fession as  their  own.  Such  a  course  effaces  all  the  lines  of 
historical  identity,  and  of  moral  consistency,  and  opens  the 
way  to  error  of  every  kind. 

Y.  The  language  of  the  Confession,  when  it  speaks  of  itself, 
is  well  worthy  of  attention. 

1.  It  calls  itself  a  Confession,,  not  a  rule.  The  Bible  is  the 
only  rule  of  faith,  and  this  document  confesses  the  faith  of 
which  the  Bible  is  the  rule. 

2.  It  calls  itself  a  Confession  of  faith  ;  oi  faith ^  not  of  men's 
opinions  or  views,  but  of  that  divine  conviction  of  saving  truth, 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  works  through  the  Word.  It  speaks 
of  that  with  which  it  has  to  do  as  "  the  holy  faith  and  Chris- 
tian religion,"  "the  one  only  and  true  religion,"  "our  holy 
religion  and  Christian  faith."  The  title  of  the  doctrinal  por- 
tion <^f  the  Confession  is,  "  Principal  Articles  of  Faith." 

3.  The  Confessors  speak  of  this  Confession  of  faith  as  "  the 
Confession  of  their  preachers,  and  their  own  Confession,"  "  the 
doctrine  which  their  preachers  have  presented  and  taught  in 
the  Churches,  in  their  lands,  principalities,  and  cities."     The 


THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION  AS  A    CREED.     265 

Preface  closes  with  the  words :  "  This  is  the  Confession  of  our- 
selves and  oiours.,  as  now  distinctly  follows,  Article  by  Article." 
They  separate  their  faith  alike  from  the  errors  of  Rome  and  of 
the  fanatical  and  rationalizing  tendencies  of  the  day. 

4.  The  Confession  declares  that :  "  The  Churches  anions:  us 
teach  "  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  Articles.  It  is  not  simply 
great  princes,  nor  great  theologians ;  it  is  the  Churches  which 
teach  these  doctrines.  The  private  opinions  of  the  greatest  of 
men  are  here  nothing.  It  is  the  faith  of  the  Churches  which 
is  set  forth,  and  those  who  acted  for  them  spoke  as  their  rep- 
resentatives, knowing  the  common  faith,  and  not  mingling 
with  it  any  mere  private  sentiments  or  peculiar  views  of  their 
own,  how^ever  important  they  might  regard  them. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  our  Evangelical  Prot- 
estant Church  is  bound  by  consistency  to  hold  a  view  simply 
because  Luther  held  it.     Her  faith  is  not  to  be  brouo-ht  to  the 

o 

touchstone  of  Luther's  private  opinion,  but  his  private  opinion 
is  to  be  tested  by  her  confessed  faith,  when  the  question  is, 
What  is  genuinely  Lutheran?  The  name  Lutheran,  as  our 
Church  tolerates  it,  means  no  more  than  that  she  heartily 
accepts  that  [N'ew  Testament  faith  in  its  integrity,  in  whose 
restoration  Luther  was  so  glorious  a  leader.  When,  at  the 
conferences  at  Augsburg,  Eck  produced  certain  passages  from 
Luther's  writings,  Brentius  and  Schnepf  replied  :  "  We  are  not 
here  to  defend  Luther's  w^ritings,  but  to  maintain  our  Confes- 
sion." In  showing  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  Sym- 
bol of  our  time,  the  Formula  of  Concord  rests  its  authority  on 
its  being  "the  unanimous  consent  and  declaration  of  our  faith." 
The  private  opinions  of  individuals,  how^ever  influential,  can 
in  no  sense  establish  or  remove  one  word  of  the  Creed  of  the 
Church.  Any  man  who,  on  any  pretence,  gives  ecclesij^stical 
authority  to  private  opinions,  is  robbing  the  Church  of  her 
freedom.  She  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  no  doctrines  which 
she  has  not  officially  declared  to  be  her  own. 

5.  The  Confessors  say,  at  the  end  of  the  doctrinal  Articles  : 
"  This  is  almost  the  main  portion  [samma:  chief  i-)oints^][)rincipal 
matters)  of  the  doctrine  which  is  preached  and  taught  in  our 
Churches,  in    order   to   the    true   Christian  instruction   and 


266  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

comfort  of  the  conscience,  as  also  for  the  edification  of  believ- 
ers." It  calls  the  things  it  sets  forth  "  the  one,  simple  truth," 
and  styles  them  "  the  chief,"  or  fundamental,  "  Articles" 
(Ilauptartikeln.) 

The  Confessors  style  and  characterize  the  Confession  as 
"  our  Confession,"  as  "  the  chief  points  of  the  doctrine  taught 
in  our  Churches,"  as  "  the  main  (or  fundamental)  Articles," 
as  "the  Articles  of  faith."  They  say:  "  Those  things  only 
have  been  recited  which  seemed  necessary  to  be  said,  that  it 
might  be  understood,  that,  in  doctrine  and  ceremonies,  nothing 
is  received  by  us  contrary  to  Scripture  ;  "  and  they  declare,  at 
the  close  of  their  work,  that  it  was  meant  as  "  a  sum  of  doc- 
trine," or  statement  of  its  chief  points,  "  for  the  making 
known  of  our  Confession,  and  of  the  doctrine  of  those  who 
teach  among  us.""^ 

6.  The  Confessors  say  of  this  statement  of  the  main  points 
of  doctrine  :  "In  it  may  be  seen,  that  there  is  nothixg  ichich  de- 
parts from  the  Scriptures  ;^'  "  it  is  clearly  founded  in  the  hoi/ 
Scriptures,"  t  "  in  conformity  with  the  pure.  Divine  word  and 
Christian  truth."  They  declare,  that,  in  these  "  main"  or 
fundamental  "  Articles,  no  falsity  or  deficiency  is  to  be  found, 
and  that  this  their  Confession  is  godly  and  Christian  (gottlich. 
und  Christlich)."  They  open  the  Articles  on  Abuses  by  reit- 
erating that  their  Confession  is  evidence,  that,"  in  the  Articles 
of  faith .,  NOTHING  is  taught  in  our  Churches  contrary  to  the 
Holy  Scripture,":}:  and  the  Confessors  close  with  the  declara- 
tion, that,  if  there  be  points  on  which  the  Confession  has 
not  touched,  they  are  prepared  to  furnish  ample  information, 
"  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,"  "  on  the  ground  of  holy 
Divine  writ." 

7.  The  Confessors  say  that  in  the  Confession  :  "  There  is 
NOTHING  which  departs  from  the  Church  Catholic.^  the  Universal 
Christian  Church:' % 

8.  The  Confessors   moreover   declare,   that  they   set   forth 

*  Epilogue,  G9,  5.  f  Epilogue,  70,  6. 

X  Nihil  inesse,  quod  discrepat  a  Scripturis  —  in  heiliger  Schrift  klar 
gegriindet.  \ 

§  Ab  Ecclesia  Catholica  —  gemeine,  Christlicher   Kirchen. 


THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION  AS  A    CREED.     267 

their  Confession  that  they  may  "  not  put  their  soul  and  con- 
science in  the  very  highest  and  greatest  peril  before  God  by 
abuse  of  the  Divine  name  or  word." 

9.  They  declare,  moreover,  that  it  is  their  grand  design  in 
the  Confession,  to  avoid  the  "  transmission  as  a  heritage  to 
their  children  and  descendants  of  another  doctrine.,  a  doctrine 
not  in  conformity  with  the  pure  Divine  word  and  Christian 
truth." 

Our  fathers  knew  well  that  human  opinions  fluctuate,  that 
men  desert  the  truth,  that  convictions  cannot  be  made  heredi- 
tary ;  but  they  knew  this  also,  that  when  men  assume  a  name, 
they  assume  the  obligations  of  the  name,  that  they  may  not 
honestly  subscribe  Confessions  unless  they  believe  their  con- 
tents ;  and  they  knew  that  after  this,  their  great  Confession, 
men  could  not  long  keep  up  the  pretence  of  being  of  them 
who  were  anti-Trinitarian,  Pelagian,  Romish,  Rationalistic,  or 
Fanatical.  They  could  transmit  the  heritage  of  their  faith  to 
their  children,  trusting  in  God  that  these  children  would  not, 
for  the  brassy  glitter  of  Rationalism,  or  the  scarlet  rags  of 
Rome,  part  with  this  birthright,  more  precious  than  gold. 

Our  fathers  believed,  with  St.  Paul,  that  the  true  faith  is 
"  one  faith,"  and  therefore  never  changes.  It  is  the  same  from 
age  to  agb.  The  witness  of  a  true  faith  is  a  witness  to  the  end 
of  time.  When,  therefore,  Br iick,  the  Chancellor  of  Saxony, 
presented  the  Confession,  he  said  :  "  By  the  help  of  God  and 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  this  Confession  shall  remain  invincible 
against  the  gates  of  hell,  to  Eternity." 


THE  SECONDARY  CONFESSIONS  OF  THE  CON- 
SERVATIVE REFORMATION. 

THE  BOOK  OF  CONCORD. 


IN  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church,  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  followed  by  five  other 
statements  of  doctrine :  the  Apology  ;  the  Schmalcald  Articles  ; 
the  two  Catechisms  ;  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  epitome,  and 
ampler  declaration,  with  an  appendix  of  testimonies  :  the  six, 
in  conjunction  with  the  three  general  Creeds,  form- 
buik"of  the  Book  ing  the  Book  of  Concord.  The  Augsburg  Confes- 
of  Concord.  ^-^^^^  ^^^  Smaller  Catechism,  and  the  Epitome,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  texts,  respectively,  on  which  the  Apology, 
the  Larger  Catechism,  and  the  Declaration  are  Commentaries. 
The  whole  of  these  books  can  be  embodied  in  a  fair  type  in 
an  ordinary  duodecimo  volume.  When  we  think  of  the  space 
which  a  minister  covers  with  the  words  in  Avhicli  during  a 
single  year  he  states  the  sacred  doctrines  —  when  we  look  at 
the  many  volumes  in  which  particular  authors  have  presented 
the  results  of  their  labors  on  Scripture,  the  folios  which  have 
been  devoted  to  single  topics,  it  hardly  seems  an  excessive 
demand  on  the  part  of  the  Church  that  she  should  ask  min- 
isters to  stud}^  one  small  volume  to  reach  the  official  expression 
of  her  judgment  on  the  greatest  questions,  which  pertain  to 
pure  doctrine,  sound  government,  and  holy  life.  Yet  the  Book 
of  Concord  has  been  denounced  apart  from  the  character  of  its 
contents  on  the  ground  that  it  contains  so  much.     Be  it  right 

2G8 


BOOK  OF  CONCORD— CONTENTS  AND  BULK.     269 

or  wrong,  be  its  teachings  truth  or  falsehood,  its  hulk  is  suf- 
ficient to  condemn  it. 

The  very  right  of  the  Book  to  a  hearing,  at  least  as  regards 
its  last  five  parts,  has  been  further  denied  on  the  ground,  that 
a  Church  having  once  announced  its  Creed  has  no  authority  to 
change  it  by  adding  to  it  —  and  that  to  change  by  adding,  in- 
volves the  same  fallacy  as  to  change  by  subtraction  ;  that  conse- 
quently those  who  at  one  extreme  accept  the  whole  Book  of 
Concord,  and  those  who  reject  the  Augsburg  Confession  in 
whole  or  part,  at  the  other,  are  alike  illogical.  —  In  reply  to 
this  these  facts  might  be  urged  : 

I.  The  use  of  the  word  "  Creed,"  in  the  objection  is  open  to 
misapprehension.  If,  by  it,  is  meant  what  a  pure  church  be- 
lieves, the  faith  and  doctrine  of  a  pure  church,  it  is  true  that 
these  cannot  be  changed.  What  a  pure  church  May  a  church 
believes  is  Scriptural,  for  a  pure  church  means  a  Z^^^^l?7il 
church  whose  faith  is  Scriptural.  If  it  be  Scrip-  isbeiieve.!. 
tural,  then  to  change  it,  is  to  abandon  the  truth,  and  to  cease 
to  be  a  pure  church.  Moreover,  the  faith  of  any  church  is  her 
identifying  point  —  losing  that,  she  loses  her  spiritual  identity. 
If  the  Catholic  Church  had  abandoned  her  faith  in  the  Trinity, 
she  would  have  ceased  to  be  the  Catholic  Church,  and  would 
have  become  the  Arian  sect.  If  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  were  carried  over  into  the  Romish  faith,  she  would 
cease  to  be  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  would  be  a 
part  of  the  Romish  apostasy.  If  the  Evangelical  Churches 
were  to  abandon  the  Evangelical  faith,  they  would  become 
Socinian  or  Universalist  bodies,  and  if  the  Lutheran  Church 
were  to  change  her  faith,  she  would  cease  to  be  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  would  become  either  a  new  sect,  or  a  part  of  this, 
that,  or  other  of  the  old  sects.  It  is  a  contradiction  in  terms 
to  talk  of  a  pure  Church,  as  such,  changing  her  faith. 

II.  But  if  by  "  Creed,"  be  meant  an  ofiicial  statement  of  the 
faith  held,  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  assert  that  there  can  be  no 
Church  authority  to  add  to  it.  As  the  Rule  of  .,  ^reed  as  * 
Faith,  the  written  revelation  of  God,  has  been  en-  'Statement  of  i,e- 
larged  by  successive  additions  from  the  early  records 

which  form  the  opening  of  Genesis,  on  through  the  Old  and 


270  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

New  Testaments,  until  the  finished  temple  stands  before  us  in 
the  Bible ;  so  may  the  Church,  as  God  shall  show  her  her 
need,  enlarge  her  Confession,  utter  more  full}-  her  testimony, 
and  thus  "change  her  Creed,"  to  express  more  amply  her  one 
unchanging  faith.  If  the  Rule  of  an  unchanging  faith  can  be 
added  to,  the  Confession  of  an  unchanging  faith  can  also  be 
added  to. 

The  identity  of  the  Church  faith  resembles  not  the  same- 
ness of  a  rock,  but  rather  the  living  identity  of  a  man.  The 
babe  and  the  adult  are  identical.  They  are  the  same  being  in 
different  stages  of  maturity  :  that  which  constitutes  the  indi- 
vidual does  not  chano;e.  The  child  does  not  ^^row  to  adult 
maturity  by  any  change  in  personal  identity  —  but  retaining 
that  identity  grows  by  its  attraction  to  itself,  of  what  is  con- 
sonant with  its  own  unchanged  nature.  Adult  perfection  is 
reached  not  by  amputations  and  ingraftings,  but  by  growth,  in 
which  the  identifying  energy  conforms  everything  to  its  own 
nature.  The  faith  of  the  Church  now  is  identical  with  what 
it  was  in  the  Apostolic  time,  but  the  relation  of  identity  does 
not  preclude  growth  —  it  only  excludes  change  of  identity. 
That  faith  must  always  be  its  essential  self — whether  as  a 
babe  receiving  milk,  or  as  a  man  enjoying  strong  meat.  In  a 
word,  the  advances  are  wrought,  not  by  change  in  the  Church 
faith,  but  by  the  perpetual  activity  of  that  faith,  a  faith  which 
because  it  is  incapable  of  change  itself,  assimilates  more  and 
more  to  it  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  her  system  of  doc- 
trine, her  lano;uao::e.  and  her  life. 

To  subtract  from  a  pure  faith  differs  as  largely  from  a 
healthy  development  of  that  faith  in  enlarged  statements, 
as  the  cutting  off  of  an  arm  differs  from  the  expansion 
of  its  muscles,  by  healthful  exercise.  The  whole  history 
of  the  Church  illustrates  the  truth  of  this  principle.  The 
creeds  recorded  in  the  Xew  Testament  were  generally  confined 
to  one  point.  Tho  Apostles'  Creed,  in  the  earliest  form 
Growihof  ti...  known  to  us,  is  a  change  of  these  primal  creeds, 
'"'■'■^"'"  in  so  far  that  it  adds  to  their  statements  to  make 

the  faith  itself  more  secure.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  as  we 
have  it  now,  is  a  change,  of  the  earliest  form,  adding  to  its 


GROWTH  OF  CREED.  271 

words  to  secure  more  perfectly  its  things.  The  Xicene  Creed, 
in  its  earliest  shape  was  a  change  in  the  same  way  from  the 
Apostles'.  The  Nicene  Creed,  (Niceno-Constantinopolitan)  in 
the  Greek,  is  a  change  of  the  earliest  Nicene,  Ijy  addition. 
The  Nicene  Creed  of  the  Churches  of  the  AVest  (hoth  Roman 
and  Protestant)  adds  the  "  iilioque  "  to  the  Mccne  of  the  East. 
The  Athanasian  Creed,  though  but  the  expansion  of  two  main 
points,  is  about  six  times  as  long  as  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Then 
through  ages  the  Church  lay  fallow;  the  soil  resting  and 
accreting  richness  for  the  time  of  a  new  breaking  up,  and  of 
a  glorious  harvest.  The  first  great  undeniable  token  that 
the  warm  rains  from  above  were  responsive  to  the  toils  of  the 
husbandman  below,  in  the  field  of  the  Lord,  Avas  the  up- 
springing  of  the  blade  of  the  New  Confession.  The  Xew  Con- 
fession in  its  opening  Word  shows  that  it  germinates  from 
the  old  seed:  "The  Churches  among  us,  with  great  accord, 
teach  that  the  decree  of  the  Nicene  Council  is  true,  and, 
without  any  doubting,  to  be  believed."  (A.  C.I.)  "Christ 
shall  return  again,  as  saith  the  Apostles'  Creed."  (A.  C. 
III.)  The  other  Confessions  mark  the  same  connection  with 
the  ancient  Creeds:  "Shall  sanctify  believers — as  teach  the 
Apostles'  and  Mcene  Creed."  (x\p.  III.)  "As  the  Apostles 
and  Athanasian  Creeds  teach."  (Smal.  Art.  II,  4.).  "  Since 
immediately  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  nay,  while 
they  were  yet  on  earth,  false  teachers  and  heretics  arose, 
against  whom,  in  the  primitive  Church,  were  composed  Sym- 
bols, that  is  brief  and  categorical  Confessions,  which  embraced 
the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Catholic  Christian  faith,  and  the 
('onfession  of  Orthodox  believers  and  of  the  true  Church,  to 
wit:  the  Apostles',  Xicene,  and  Athanasian  Creeds  ;  we  profess 
publicly  that  we  embrace  them,  and  reject  all  heresies,  and  all 
doctrines  which  have  ever  been  brought  into  the  Church  of  God, 
contrary  to  them."  (Forniul.  Concord.  517,  3.)—  "  Those  three 
Catholic  and  General  Creeds  are  of  the  highest  authority  — 
brief,  but  most  holy  Confessions,  solidly  founded  in  God's 
word,  most  glorious  Confessions."     (Do.  569,  4.) 

The  Augsburg  Confession,  itself,  was  a  "change  of  creed,  by 
addition,"  inasmuch  as  it  more  amply  confessed  all  the  points 


272  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

of  the  Apostles',  ^NHcene,  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  and  added  a 
confession  on  manifold  points,  held,  indeed,  potentially  and 
implicitly  in  the  faith  of  the  pure  Church,  but  never  before 
formally  confessed  by  her. 

But,  furthermore,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  even  as  a  Luth- 
eran document,  is  an  abiding  witness  of  the  right  and  duty 
of  Christian  men,  and  a  portion  of  the  Christian  Church  to 
amplify  the  confession  of  the  faith,  according  to  the  leadings 
of  God's  providence.  For  the  Augsbarg  Confession  is  really 
not  first,  h\xt  fourth  m  the  Genesis  of  our  Church's  first  official 
statement  of  her  distinctive  faith.  For  first  were  the  XV 
Marburg  Articles,  in  which  the  great  representatives  of  our 
Church  made  a  statement  of  points  of  faith  ;  then  the  XYII 
Articles  of  Swabach,  then  the  Articles  of  Torgau,  and  as  the 
outgrowth  of  the  whole,  and  their  noble  consummation,  last  of 
all,  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

The  Augsburg  Confession,  itself,  grew  from  its  earliest  shape, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Conference  at  Augsburg,  up  to  the 
day  of  its  delivery  to  the  Emperor.  The  one  faith  which  it 
confessed  in  its  infant  form,  shaped  its  phrases,  added  to  its 
enumerations,  guarded  against  misapprehensions  more  per- 
fectly, until  it  reached  its  maturity. 

III.  The  right  to  "  change  a  creed,"  "  by  addition^''  is,  if  it 
be  fallacy  at  all,  not  a  common  fallacy^  with  the  assumption  of 
a  right  to  "  change  by  subtraction  J^  The  mistake  here  involved 
Toiu-fineisnot  ^^  ^'^  usliig  thc  word  "  chaugc"  ambiguously,  and 
todiange.  in  making  it  falsely  emphatic.     We  deny  the  right 

of  a  pure  Church  to  change  the  faith  :  we  hold  that  her  creed 
should  not  be  changed  ;  but  we  maintain,  first,  that  to  cut  out 
articles  of  faith  bodily  from  her  creed,  and  to  mangle  and 
change  the  meaning  of  what  remains,  is  to  change  her  creed  ; 
and  secondly,  that  to  leave  her  earlier  creed  untouched  and 
unvaried,  to  cling  to  it  heart  and  soul,  in  its  original  and 
proper  sense,  and  in  order  to  the  maintenance  of  the  faith  it 
treasures,  to  witness  again,  in  ampler  form,  by  adding  clear 
and  Scriptural  statements  of  doctrine^  is  not  to  change  the 
creed,  but  is  the  act  of  wisdom  to  prevent  its  change.  If  a 
clergyman,  on  one  Lord's  Day,  should  succinctly  set  forth  the 


GENERAL  JUDGMENT   OF  THE   CIIURCn.         273 

doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  and  should  find,  that  owing 
to  the  brevity  of  his  statement,  the  uncultured  had  misunder- 
stood it,  or  the  malicious  had  taken  occasion  to  pervert  it,  he 
might  very  properly,  on  the  next  Lord's  Day,  amplify  his 
statement,  and  thus  "  change  his  creed  by  addition,"  for  every 
sermon  is  a  minister's  creed.  If  his  doing  so  is  a  fallacy,  it  is 
surely  not  a  common  fallacy  with  his  retractation,  denial  or 
evasion  on  the  second  Lord's  Day,  of  what  he  taught  on  the 
■first ;  not  a  common  fallacy,  even  if  his  second  statement 
were  needlessly  extended,  and  though  it  introduced  many 
statements  on  other  closely  associated  doctrines. 

ly.  We  object  also  to  all  unnecessary  multiplication  of  the 
number  or  extension  of  the  bulk  of  creeds.  So  does  the  Luth- 
eran Church,  as  a  whole.  For  nearly  three  centuries,  no 
addition  has  been  made  to  her  Symbolical  Books ;  and  although 
it  is  quite  possible  that,  for  local  reasons,  parts  of  our  Church 
may  enunciate  more  largely  particular  elements  of  g^,,^^^x  j„,ig. 
her  faith,  we  do  not  think  it  likely  that  the  Luth-  "^^"t  «f  ^^'^ 

'  ^  '^  Church  as  to  de- 

eran  Church,  as  a  whole,  will  ever  add  to  her  sirabieness  of 
Symbols,  not  merely  anything  which  can  have  such  -">p'«  definition 
relations  to  them  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  has  (which 
would  be  impossible),  but  not  even  such  as  the  Formula  of 
Concord  has. 

But  this  does  not  settle  the  question  now  before  us.  We 
think  we  have  shown,  that  to  have  creeds  additional  to  the 
Au2;sburg  Confession,  is  not  in  itself  inconsistent  or  wrong. 
ISTow  to  the  point :  Is  it  necessary  or  desirable  that  there  should 
be  any  such  additional  statements?  To  this  question,  our 
wliole  Church,  without  a  solitary  exception,  which  we  can 
recall,  certainly  with  no  important  exception,  has  returned  the 
same  reply,  to  wit :  that  it  is  desirable  and  necessary.  For 
while  it  is  a  fact,  that  no  creed,  exclusively  hers,  except  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  has  been  formally  accepted  in  every  part 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  it  is  equally  true  that  there  is  no  impor- 
tant part  of  that  Church  which  has  not  had^  in  addition^  some  other 
Creed.  [N'o  national,  or  great  Lutheran  Church,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  her  full  organization,  to  this  hour,  has  had  nothing  but 
the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  statement  of  her  faith.    For  not 

18 


274  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

to  speak  of  the  three  General  Creeds  to  which  the  Lutheran 
Church  pays  higher  reverence  than  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
itself,  many  of  "the  Lutheran  Churches  before  the  preparation 
Df  the  Book  of  Concord,  had  their  Bodies  of  Doctrine,  as  ))ulky 
as  the  collection  which  has  been  so  much  decried  for  its  vast 
extent,   and  sometimes   more   bulky.     There  lies  before  the 
writer,  for  example,  the  first  of  these,  the  Corpus  Doctrinpe, 
the  Symbolical  Books  of  Saxony  and  Misnia,  printed  in  1560, 
edited  by   Melanchthon,  which,  in  addition  to  the  General 
Creeds  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  has  the  Apology,  and 
four  other  extensive  statements  of  doctrine,  forming  a  folio  of 
more  than  a  thousand  pages.     Every  one  of  the  seven  ponder, 
ous  Corpora  Doctrinse  has  *  additions  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, as,  for  example,  the  Apology,  both  the  Catechisms  of 
Luther,  and  the  Schmalcald  Articles,  in  fact,  everything  now 
in  the  Book  of  Concord  which  had  appeared  up  to  the  time  of 
their  issue.     The  Church  Orders  and  Liturgies  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century  embraced  Creeds.     We  have  examined  nearly  all  of 
them  in  the  originals,  or  in  Eichter's   Collection.     We  have 
not  noticed  one  which  has  the  Augsburg  Confession  alone. 
It  is  an  historical  fact  easily  demonstrated,  that  the  Book  of 
Concord  diminished  both  the  number  of  doctrinal 
co?cord^re7rLed'  statcmcuts  aud  thc  hulk  of  the  books  containing 
the    mnitipiica-  thcm,  iu  thc  various  Lutheran  Churches.     It  not 
t.on  of  Creed..     ^^^^^  ^cmoved  the  Corpora  Doctrinse,  but  the  yet 
more  objectionable  multiplied  Confessions  prepared  by  various 
local  Reformers,  and  pastors,  of  which  not  only  lands,  but 
cities  and  towns  had  their  own.     So  far  from  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord introducing  the  idea  of  addition  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, it,  in  fact,  put  that  idea  under  the  wisest  restrictions.     But, 
not  to  dwell  on  this  point  further,  it  is  certain  that  {^Lu- 
theran Church,  with  a  positive,  almost  absolute    unanimity, 
decided,  both  before  and  after  the  Book  of  Concord,  that  it  is 
desirable  to  have   more  than  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a 
statement  of  doctrine. 

The  Lutheran  Church  in  America  is  no  exception  to  this 
rule.  Her  founders  confessed  to  the  whole  body  of  the  Sym- 
bols.    The  General  Synod  recognizes,  in  addition  to  the  Augs- 


BOOK  OF  CONCORD-CONTENTS   OF.  275 

burg  Confession,  the  Smaller  Catechism  for  the  people,  and  in  its 
Theological  Seminary,  originally,  both  Catechisms  were  men- 
tioned in  the  Professor's  oath.  In  its  present  form  the  Smaller 
Catechism  is  retained.  But  if  the  Smaller  Catechism  be 
adopted,  and  an  ampler  statement  of  doctrine  be  an  unlawful 
change,  that  Catechism  alone  must  be  adopted,  and  the 
Augsburg  Confession  which  appeared  a  year  later,  be  thrown 
out. 

The  Book  of  Concord  may  be  divided  generically  into  two 
parts :  the  first  part  selected,  the  second  part  original.  The 
first  is  formed  by  our  Church  Creeds,  which  it  simply  collected. 
The  second  is  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  two  uook  of  cun- 
parts,  Epitome  and  Declaratio,  which  it  first  set  ^"'•J'<^^""tent«of. 
forth.  Every  part  of  both  these  divisions,  except  the  first  part 
of  the  first,  would  be  rejected  on  the  principle  we  now  discuss  ; 
in  fact,  if  the  principle  were  pressed  through,  logically,  not 
only  would  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  the  Apostles'  Creed 
itself  be  sacrificed  to  it.  The  Church  would  have  to  recover  the 
earliest  form  of  the  Creed,  or  be  creedless  altos-ether. 

First  of  all,  then,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  jive-sevenths  of 
what  now  forms  the  Book  of  Concord,  were  accepted  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  before  that  Book  was  compiled :  secondly, 
that  the  directly  confessional  part  of  the  Formula  (the 
Epitome)  is  very  little  larger  than  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  "  Solid  Declaration"  being  simply  an  exegesis  and  defence 
of  the  Epitome.  Let  us  for  the  present  look  at  these  earlier 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  Taking  then,  one  by  one,  the 
Symbols  which  follow  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Book 
of  Concord,  let  us  ask  whether  it  be  wrong ^  to  acknowledge 
officially,  that  they  set  forth  the  faith  of  our  Church  ?  To 
begin  with  the  first  of  these, — 

Is  IT    WRONG    TO    ACKNOWLEDGE    THE    APOLOGY  AS    A  SyMBOL  OF 

THE  Lutheran  Church  ?  This  question  we  will  answer  by  a 
few  facts. 

I.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  it  presents  one  and  the  same 
system  of  faith  with  the  Augsburg  Confession.  It  is  in  its 
first  sketch  the  Answer  from  the  hand  of  the  great  Melanch- 
thon,  with  the  advice  and  co-labor  of  the  other  theologians, 


276  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

to  the  Roman  Catholic  Reply  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Pre- 
pared under  the  direction  of  the  same  authority  that  had  origi- 
Tiu>  A,H,iof;y.  Rated  the  Confession,  it  was  designed  to  present 
it  to  the  Emperor  in  the  same  way.  Happily,  the  Emperor 
refused  to  allow  its  presentation:  for  that  refusal  has  substi- 
tuted for  Melanchthon's  sketch  the  Apology  as  we  now  have  it. 
Melanchthon,  on  receiving  the  Papal  Confutation,  at  once 
gave  himself  to  the  work  of  answering  it  in  full.  On  the 
journey  from  Augsburg  to  Wittenberg,  he  labored  on  it. 
At  Altenburg,  in  Spalatin's  house,  he  was  engaged  upon  it  on 
Sunday,  till  Luther  took  the  pen  from  his  hand,  telling  him 
that  "  on  this  day  he  should  rest  from  such  labor.  We  can 
serve  God,  not  only  by  labor,  but  by  rest  ;  therefore  he  has 
given  us  the  third  Commandment  and  ordained  the  Sabbath."* 
No  longer  amid  the  confusion  and  disadvantages  of  a  strange 
place,  but  at  home,  Melanchthon  prepares  this  defence,  expan- 
sion and  explanation  of  the  Confession.  What  can  be  more 
obvious  than  the  Providence  which  reveals  itself  in  the 
occasion  and  character  of  the  Apology  ? 

II.  Kollner,  confessedly  a  most  able  writer,  but  not  Luth- 
eran in  doctrine,  says  of  the  Apology  :  "  It  had  from  the  very 
beginning,  and  has  had  without  dispute  up  to  the  recent  times, 
the  validity  of  a  Symbol."  Winer,  that  princely  scholar, 
whose  laxity  of  doctrinal  views  gives  more  value  to  his  testi- 
mony on  this  point,  says  :  "  Beyond  dispute,  with  reference  to 
the  matter  it  contains,  this  work  takes  the  first  rank  among  the 
Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church."  We  might  multiply  cita- 
tions like  these,  but  it  is  not  necessary. 

III.  The  Apology  has  been  regarded  indeed  in  our  Church 
as  one  of  her  noblest  jewels.  In  making  it  one  of  her  Symbols, 
she  confessed  her  profound  love  for  it.  In  reply  to  one  of  the 
fiercest  assaults  made  upon  her  bythe  Jesuits,  the  Apology 
without  note  or  comment,  was  reprinted,  as  in  itself  an  ample 
reply  to  all  the  falsehoods  that  Romish  malignity  could  invent 
against  our  Church. 

IV.  In  modern  times,  the  attacks  upon  it  have  come  first 

*Salig:  Hist.  d.  Augsp.  Conf.  I,  375.  Ledderhose's  Melanchthon.  Transl 
by  Dr.  Krotel,  116. 


THE  APOLOGY.  277 

from  the  covert  infidels  who  crept  into  the  Church  under  the 
pretentious  name  of  rationalists,  and  secondly  from  unionistic 
theologians.  Over  against  this,  the  unvarying  witness  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  has  been  given  to  the  pure  teaching,  the 
great  importance,  and  the  symbolic  validity  of  the  Apology. 
Let  a  few  facts  illustrate  this. 

1.  The  Lutheran  States  whose  names  are  subscribed  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  offered  the  Apology  to  the  Diet,  and  the 
sole  reason  why  it  did  not  take  its  place  at  once,  symboli- 
cally co-ordinate  in  every  respect  with  the  Confession,  was  that 
Romish  bigotry  refused  it  a  hearing.  The  fierce  intolerance  of 
the  hour  anticipated  the  objection  to  hearing  anything  further 
in  the  way  of  explanation  or  vindication  of  the  Confession. 
Was  it  a  fallacy  of  the  same  sort,  for  the  Lutheran  States  to 
prepare  the  Apology,  as  it  would  have  been  for  them  to  have 
come  back  to  the  Diet,  having  taken  out  everything  in  the 
Confession,  which  Eck  and  his  co-workers  did  not  relish? 
Prepared  by  the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
adopted  by  its  signers,  is  it  probable  that  the  Apology  was  in 
any  respect  out  of  harmony  with  the  work  it  defended  ? 

2.  In  1532,  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  States  presented  it  at 
the  Schweinfurth  Convention  as  their  Confession  of  Faith. 

3.  In  1533,  Luther,  in  a  consolatory,  printed,  public  and 
official  letter,  refers  the  Christians  who  were  driven  out  of 
Leipzig,  to  the  Confession  and  its  Apology,  as  setting  forth 
his  faith  and  that  of  the  Church.  Both  are  incorporated  in 
all  the  old  editions  of  Luther's  works,  as  so  thoroughly  an 
exhibition  of  his  faith,  of  his  thoughts  and  even  of  his  phrase- 
ology, as  really  in  an  important  sense  to  be  considered  his. 

In  the  letter  to  the  persecuted  Lutherans  at  Leipzig,*  Luther 
says  :  "At  Augsburg,  our  general  (allgemeine)  Confession 
sounded  in  the  ears  of  the  Emperor  and  of  the  whole  realm  ; 
and  then,  by  the  press,  in  all  the  world  .  .  Why  should  I  say 
more?  There  are  my  writings  and  public  Confessions  —  our 
Confession  and  Apology:  in  the  Churches,  our  usages  are  before 
men's  eyes ;  wherein  we  superabundantly  show  what  we 
believe  and  hold  as  certain,  not  alone  in  these  Articles  con- 

*Werke:  Leipz.  xxi.  20.     Walch ;   x.  2228. 


278  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK 

cerniug  the  Sacrament,  but  in  all  parts  of  the  faith  .  .  There- 
fore, Dear  Friends,  be  firm,  let  no  one  mislead  you,  give  ear  to 
no  empty  talk  (Geschwiitze),  even  though  it  should  come  from 
our  own  side  :  but  hold  fast  to  our  Confession  and  Apology .  .  . 
Hold  fast  to  the  Gospel,  and  to  St.  Paul's  doctrine,  to  which 
also  our  Apology  and  our  Church  usage  hold  fast." 

4.  In  1537,  at  Schmalcald,  the  Apology,  at  the  request  of  the 
Princes,  was  thoroughly  compared  with  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion by  the  theologians,  and  then,  as  consonant  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  Confession,  formally  subsaibed  by  them  with 
the  declaration,  that  they  "  believed  and  taught  in  their 
Churches  in  accordance  w^ith  the  Articles  of  the  Confession  and 
Apology."* 

5.  In  1539,  in  Denmark,  it  was  prescribed  as  a  doctrinal 
guide  to  the  Lutheran  pastors. 

6.  In  1540,  it  was  delivered  to  the  Conference  at  Worms,  as 
a  statement  of  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  as  a  basis  of  discussions. 

7.  In  1541, it  was  solemnly  confirmed  by  the  "Evangelical 
Princes,"  "  the  Allied  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession," 
"  the  Protestant  Princes  and  States,"  who  say  to  the  Emperor: 
"  And  that  no  man  may  doubt  what  kind  of  doctrine  is  set  forth 
in  our  Churches,  we  again  testify,  that  we  adhere  to  the  Con- 
fession which  was  presented  to  your  Majesty  at  Augsburg, 
and  to  the  Apology  which  has  been  added  to  it,  nor  do  we 
doubt  that  this  doctrine  is  truly  the  Consent  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  has  been  delivered  in  the  writings  of  the 
Prophets  and  the  Apostles,  and  has  firm  testimonies  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  of  the  learned  fathers  —  and  in  this 
faith  and  acknowledgment  of  Christ  we  shall  ever  call  upon 
God  and  show  forth  His  praise,  with  His  Catholic  Church."  f 

8.  It  was  incorporated  in  all  the  "  Bodies  of  Doctrine,"  the 
"  Corpora  Doctrine "  proper,  of  the  various  parts  of  our 
Church,  without  exception;  and 

9.  In  1580,  it  took  its  due  place  in  the  Book  of  Concord. 

*  In  all  the  editions  of  the  Symbolical  Books  at  the  end  of  the  Schmaicald 
Articles. 

f  Melanchthon's  Opera.  Witeberg.  iv.  752.  Corp.  Reformat,  iv.  col.  483.  In 
German  :  Walch  :  xvii.  865.  (Bucers  translation)  Corp.  Kef.  iv.  493,494.  (Melanch- 
thon's Original.) 


VALUE   OF  THE  APOLOGY.  279 

V.  It  deserves  the  place  our  Church  has  given  it.  On  the 
merits  of  the  Apology  Kollner  *  says  :  "  In  considering  its  value 
for  its  immediate  purpose,  it  is  difficult  to  praise  this  work  enough, 
alike  as  to  its  form  and  the  entire  composition  of  it,  and  its 
doctrinal  matter.  It  is  written  with  an  inimitable  vaiue  of  the 
clearness,  distinctness  and  simplicity,  which  must  ^P'^'^'ey. 
carry  conviction  alike  to  the  learned  and  the  unlearned.  Its 
moderation  and  modesty  are  worthy  of  the  good  cause  it  vin- 
dicated. The  mild  and  pious  character  of  Melanchthon  so 
sheds  its  lustre  on  the  whole,  as  to  force  the  conviction  that 
the  noblest  views  and  purest  piety,  with  no  particle  of  un- 
worthy aim,  here  struggle  in  behalf  of  religion. 

As  to  its  matter,  it  is  undeniable,  that  it  presents  the  truth 
in  the  clearest  light,  and  successfully  maintains  the  Evangeli- 
cal doctrine  over  against  the  Romish  system.  Its  effectiveness 
for  the  interests  of  the  Gospel  in  its  own  era^  is  beyond  descripttion 
(unbeschreiblich.)  Historically  considered,  therefore,  the 
Apoloo;}^  may  claim  in  the  formation  and  confirmation  of  the 
Evangelical  Church  an  infinitely  high  (unendlich  hoher)  value. 
To  the  Apology  belongs  an  eternal  value.  If  the  Church  should 
make  to  herself  new  symbols,  she  will  take  over  her  funda- 
mental doctrines  from  this  symbol,  and  to  it  will  be  due  a  holy 
reverence  to  the  end  of  time." 

The  same  distinguished  writer  says  in  another  work :  f  "  ^ot 
only  for  the  immediate  aim  of  its  own  time,  but  as  absolutely 
now  as  in  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  the  Apology  has  its  value 
and  importance  for  religious  truth,  inasmuch  as  it  wrought  all 
that  (indescribable  effect),  alone  by  the  deepest  and  weightiest 
truths  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  witnesses  to 
them,  and  the  Apology  more  amply  unfolds  and  establishes  them. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  was  an  erudite  State-paper,  composed 
with  equal  diplomatic  foresight  and  caution,  and  Evangelical 
simplicity,  and  for  this  very  reason  needed  a  fuller  exposition  . . 
Hence  it  was  and  is  of  inexpressible  importance,  that  the  illus- 
trious man,  to  whom,  to  say  the  least,  the  superintendence  of 
the  preparation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  been  given, 

*  Symbol,  d.  Luth.  Kirch.  436. 

fDie  gute  Sache  d.  Luther.  Symbol,  geg.  ihre  Ankliig.  Gottingen.  1847.  p.  153. 


280  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

should  himself  set  in  a  yet  clearer  light  its  brief  propositioDS, 
in  this  second  jewel  of  Evangelical  Lutheran  testimony  ;  that 
he  should  explain  and  establish  them  from  the  entire  complex 
of  Evano^elical  Biblical  truth.  The  fundamental  and  essential 
doctrine  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  in  its  separation  from  the 
human  additions  of  the  Romish  priestly  caste,  consists  in  this, 
that  we  are  justified,  not  by  the  righteousness  of  works,  but 
by  regeneration  in  the  faith  of  the  Gospel.  And  as  this  was 
the  centre  from  which  the  heroes  of  the  faith  in  the  Reforma- 
tion fought  out  their  triumphs,  so  is  it  now,  not  only  pro- 
foundest  truth,  but  is  the  chief  doctrine  of  Christianity  itself, 
a  doctrine  which  insures  to  Christianity  and  to  the  Evangelical 
Church  with  it,  a  perpetual  endurance  —  for  it  is  the  very 
truth  eternal  itself.  This  doctrine  in  which  is  the  ground  and 
essence  of  all  Christianity,  is  established  by  Melanchthon  in  the 
Apology  with  a  greater  accuracy  than  anywhere  else."  "To 
its  importance  testimony  is  borne  in  the  attacks  of  its  enemies, 
who  felt  deeply  the  injury  to  their  cause,  connected  with  the 
clear,  luminous,  and  Scriptural  argument,  the  dialectic  skill, 
the  combination  of  repose  and  thoroughness,  with  a  beneficent 
warmth  which  characterize  this  w^riting.  In  the  grand  thing, 
the  doctrine,  it  is  as  pure  as  the  Confession  to  whose  vindica- 
tion it  is  consecrated."  * 

The  next  great  Confession  in  the  Book  of  Concord  is  the 
ScHMALCALD  ARTICLES.  The  vcry  existence  of  these  Articles 
is  a  proof  that  neither  the  Lutheran  authorities,  who  caused 
them  to  be  written,  nor  Martin  Luther,  who  is  their  author, 
TheSci.maicaid  nor  thc  great  theologians  who  advised  in  their  pre- 
Articies.  paratlou,   nor   Melanchthon,   Jonas,  Bugenhagen, 

Creutziger,  Amsdorf,  Spalatin,  Brentius,  and  the  other  great 
theologians  and  pastors  of  our  churches  who  subscribed  them, 
imagined  that  to  confess  the  Church's  faith  more  fully  involves 
a  fallacy. 

The  Articles  were  occasioned  by  the  expectation  that  a  free 
General  Council,  bo  ardently  desired  from  the  beginning  by  the 
Reformers,  and  so  often  promised,  was  at  length  about  to  be 
convened.     The   Pope  convened   a  Council,  to  be  opened   at 

*  Miiller  Ixxix. 


THE  SCHMALCALD  ARTICLES.  281 

Mantua,  on  the  23d  of  May,  1537.  To  this  Council  the  Evan- 
gelical (Lutheran)  States  were  invited  to  come ;  and  until  it 
became  manifest  that  it  was  not  to  be  a  free  Council,  they 
showed  a  strong  desire  to  be  represented  in  it. 

In  consequence  of  the  expectation  that  the  truth  would  have 
a  hearing,  the  Elector  desired  to  have  a  new  statement  of  the 
great  doctrinal  principles  of  our  Church,  touching  those  ques- 
tions which  would  arise  at  the  Council  as  matters  of  discussion 
between  Lutherans  and  Romanists.  This  desire  iiow  thoy  orig- 
led  him  to  commit  to  Luther  the  composition  of  '°**^''* 
new  Articles  as  a  basis  of  Conference.  The  Articles  thus  pre- 
pared were  taken  to  the  Convention  of  the  Evangelical  States, 
held  at  Schmalcald,  in  February,  1537.  There  they  were  thor- 
oughly examined  by  our  great  theologians,  and  by  them  sub- 
scribed, and,  from  the  place  where  they  were  signed,  came  to 
be  called  the  Schmalcald  Articles. 

The  question  at  once  suggests  itself,  Why  was  a  new  Con- 
fession prepared?  Why  was  not  the  Augsburg  Confession  con- 
sidered sufficient,  in  itself,  or  as  sufficient  in  conjunction  with 
the  Apology?  Was  our  Church  giving  way,  or  ^hy  they  were 
changing  her  ground,  or  dissatisfied  with  her  first  necessary, 
great  Confession  ?     Far  from  it.     The  reasons  were  these  :  — 

I.  The  Augsburg  Confession  had  too  much.,  in  some  respects, 
for  the  object  in  view.  The  object  in  view,  in  1537,  was  to  com- 
pare the  points  of  controversy  between  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Eomanists.  The  Augsburg  Confession  is  in  large  measure  a 
Confession  of  the  whole  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  and 
hence  embraces  much  about  which  there  is  no  controversy 
between  our  Church  and  the  Romish  ;  as,  for  example,  the  doc- 
trine concerning  God  and  the  Son  of  God.  It  was  as  much  an 
object  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  show  wherein  our  Church 
agreed  with  the  Roman  Church  in  so  much  of  the  faith  as  that 
Church  had  purely  preserved,  as  to  show  wherein,  in  conse- 
quence of  her  apostasy  from  parts  of  the  truth,  our  Church 
departed  from  her.  The  Augsburg  Confession  had  done  its 
great  work  in  correcting  misrepresentations  of  our  Church  on 
the  former  points.  It  was  now  desirable  that  omitting  the 
discussion  of  what  was  settled,  she  should  the  more  clearly  ex- 


282  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

press  herself  on  the  points  of  difference.  This  was  the  more 
needful,  because  in  the  efforts  to  come  to  an  agreement  at 
Augsburg,  which  followed  the  25th  of  June,  Melanchthon,  in 
his  great  gentleness,  had  made  concessions,  whose  real  point 
the  Romanists  perverted,  so  as  to  find  a  warrant  in  them  for 
false  interpretations  of  the  Confession  in  its  distinctive  doc- 
trines. They  understood  well  the  two  counter-tricks  of  pole- 
mics :  the  one,  to  exaggerate  differences  until  innocence  looks 
like  crime  ;  the  other  to  diminish  differences  until  truth  seems 
nearly  identical  with  error.  The  Church  wished  the  deck 
cleared  for  action,  that  the  truth  disputed  might  put  forth  its 
whole  strength,  and  the  truth  obscured  reveal  its  whole  char- 
acter.    But 

II.  The  Augsburg  Confession  has  too  little  for  a  perfect  exhi- 
bition of  the  full  position  of  our  Church  as  to  the  errors  of 
Rome.  In  1530,  our  fathers  rightly  avoided  an  unnecessary 
opening  of  points  of  difference  ;  for  there  was  yet  hope  that 
many  in  the  Church  of  Rome  would  be  drawn  by  the  gentler 
power  of  the  truth,  and  that  the  fierceness  of  the  conflict  might 
be  allayed.  But  the  providence  of  God  had  made  it  impera- 
tive that  the  Church  should  more  amply  set  forth  now  what 
she  had  succinctly  confessed  in  1530. 

III.  The  Augsburg  Confession  icas  not  in  the  right  key  for  the 
work  now  to  be  done.  That  Confession  was  the  Church's  em- 
bodiment of  tbe  Spirit  of  her  Lord,  when  he  is  tender  with 
the  erring.  Now  the  time  had  come  when  she  was  to  embody 
the  Spirit  of  that  same  Lord,  when  he  speaks  intones  of  judg- 
ment to  the  wilful  and  perverse. 

Through  the  Augsburg  Confession,  even  in  the  night  of  con- 
flict which  seemed  to  be  gathering,  the  Church  sang,  "  Peace 
on  earth,"  but  in  the  Schmalcald  Articles,  the  very  Prince  of 
Peace  seemed  to  declare  that  He  had  come  to  bring  a  sword  — 
the  double-edged  sword  of  truth— the  edge  exquisitely  keen, 
and  the  scabbard  thrown  away.  Therefore,  wise  and  heaven- 
guided,  the  Church  which  had  committed  the  olive  branch  to 
Melanchthon,  gave  the  sword  to  Luther. 

The  motion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  to  the  flute,  the 
Schmalcald  Articles  moved  to  the  peals  of  the  clarion,  and  the 


Their  value. 


THE  SCHMALCALD  ARTICLE S— THEIR    VALUE.     283 

roll  of  the  kettle-drum.  In  the  Augshurg  Confession  Truth 
makes  her  overtures  of  peace,  in  the  Schmalcald  Articles  she 
lays  down  her  ultimatum  in  a  declaration  of  war. 

That  which  was  secondary  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 
primary  in  the  Schmalcald  Articles.  At  Augsburg  our  Church 
stood  up  for  the  Truth,  that  error  might  die  by  the  life  of 
Truth;  at  Schmalcald  she  stood  up  against  the  error,  that 
Truth  might  live  by  the  death  of  error.  To  utter  her  new  tes- 
timony, to  take  her  new  vantage  ground,  was  to  use  conquests 
made,  as  a  basis  for  conquests  yet  to  be  made. 

The  Jesuits,  indeed,  set  up  the  cry,  that  the  Schmalcald 
Articles  are  in  conflict  with  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Our 
Church,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  has  answered  the  false- 
hood, by  placing  them  among  her  crown  jewels.  And  there 
they  deserve  to  be.  "  ISTot  only  were  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  presented  clearly,  but  they  were  stated  so  thoroughly 
in  Luther's  style,  might  and  spirit,  that  the  era 
which  he  moved  so  profoundly,  could  not  but  recog- 
nize in  them,  alike  a  faithful  image  of  the  Truth,  and  a  new 
point  of  support  for  it.  In  these  Articles  Luther  presents 
directly  the  principles  of  the  Evangelical  (Lutheran)  Church, 
and  of  the  Eomish  See,  in  their  conflict.  In  the  name  of  the 
Evangelical  Church  he  has  spoken  against  the  whole  Papacy  a 
bold  and  manly  word,  the  word  of  refutation,  with  nothing  to 
weaken  its  force.  And  this  fact  is  decisive  in  establishing 
their  high  value  for  our  own  time.  The  impossibility  of  unit- 
ing the  Evangelical  (Lutheran)  Church's  pure  life  with  Rome's 
worldly  aims,  is  set  in  so  clear  a  light,  that  the  Evangelical 
Church  will  ever  look  upon  this  Symbol  with  the  greatest  rev- 
erence, and  cling  to  it  with  true  devotion.  Melanchthon's 
Appendix  to  the  Articles  is  classic  alike  in  form  and  matter. 
For  our  Church  these  writings  must  ever  remain  very  weighty, 
and  the  more  because  outside  of  them  there  is  nowhere  else  in 
the  Symbols  so  ample  a  statement  about  the  Papacy,  and  what 
is  to  be  noted  well,  so  ample  a  statement  against  it."  (Kollner.) 

'^  They  form,"  says   Muller,*  ''  w^ith  the  earlier  Symbols  a 
complete  whole,  yet  have,  for  the  reasons  given,  an  indepeu- 

*  Die  Symb.  Bucher,  Ixxxii. 


284  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

dent  value,  because  in  fbem  the  Lutherans  for  the  first  time, 
expressly  and  at  large,  define  their  relations  to  the  Pope  and 
the  Papacy.  We  may  say,  that  in  and  with  them  the 
Reformation  closes,  and  the  final  separation  from  Rome  is 
pronounced." 

The  compassion  which  moved  our  Lord  when  He  saw  the 
multitudes,  fainting  and  scattering  abroad,  as  sheep  having 
no  shepherd,  was  breathed  by  Him  into  the  heart 
chtmsrthefr'oc'  of  Luthcr,  aud  originated  the  Catechisms.  The 
casion  and  char-  yeamiug  to  providc  for  thc  religious  wants  of  the 
^  "'  neglected  people,  early  showed  itself  in  Luther's 

labors,*  and  during  the  visitation  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony, 
1527-1529,  matured  in  the  decision  to  prepare  the  Catechisms  : 
"This  Catechism,  or  Christian  instruction,  in  its  brief,  plain, 
simple  shape,  I  have  been  constrained  and  forced  to  prepare  by 
the  pitiful  need  of  which  I  have  had  fresh  experience  in  my 
recent  work  of  visitation."  In  its  general  idea,  Catechizing, 
the  oral  instruction,  of  the  young  especially,  in  the  elements  of 
divine  truth,  is  as  old  as  religion  itself,  and  has  always  been  in 
the  Church ;  but  to  Luther  belongs  the  glory  of  fixing  the  idea 
of  the  Catechism,  as  the  term  is  now  used.  He  is  the  father 
of  Catechetics  proper,  and  the  most  ancient  Catechism  now 
used  in  the  world  is  Luther's  Shorter  Catechism  of  1529.  In 
the  Catechisms  he  retained  what  the  Ancient  Church  had 
used  as  the  basis  of  the  elementary  instruction,  to  wit :  the 
Decalogue,  the  Creed,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer :  only  adding  the 
explanation  of  the  Two  Sacraments.  ''  In  this  he  showed  far 
more  Catechetical,  Churchly-Didactic  tact,  than  all  the  authors, 
whose  thread  is  that  of  a  system,  be  this  system  what  it  may. 
There  is  in  the  Catechisms  a  genuine  conservatism,  a  holding 
fast  and  development  of  that  which  already  had  its  home  as 
the  Christian  Confession  in  the  heart  of  the  people.  In  the 
explanations  which  follow  his  questions.  What  does  this  mean  ? 
How  does  this  take  place?  he  has  retained,  almost  word  for 

*  See  Luther's  Catechetical  Writings,  beginning  with  the  Exposition  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer  for  the  simple  laity,  1518.  Werke:  Leipz.  xxii.  Walch  x.  Er- 
bngen  xxi-xxiii.  Luther's  Catechisms.  By  John  G.  Morris,  D.  D.  Evaiig.  Rev. 
fuly,  1849. 


CONFESSIONAL  AUTHORITY.  285 

word,  language  found  in  Kero  (the  Monk  of  St.  Gall,  A.  D.  750), 
in  bis  exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  in  fact,  found  yet  earlier, 
in  the  Sacramentary  of  Gelasius  (Pope  492-496.)  It  shows  the 
self-renunciation,  with  which  Luther  held  aloof  from  the  for- 
mulary manner  of  Dogmatics  and  from  Polemics  ;  it  reveals  the 
art  of  saying  much  in  little,  yet  with  all  its  pregnant  richness 
never  becomes  obscure,  heavy,  unfit  for  the  people.  These 
qualities,  in  conjunction  with  that  warm,  hearty  tone,  in  virtue 
of  which  Lobe  "  (who  simply  repeats  an  expression  of  Luther 
himself)  "  says  the  Catechism  can  be  lyraycd^  these  — despite  the 
barbarism  of  times  and  tendencies,  whose  nature  it  has  been 
to  have  the  least  comprehension  of  the  highest  beauty  —  have 
preserved  to  this  little  book  its  exalted  place  of  honor."  * 

The  love  of  the  Church  anticipated  the  orders  of  Consistories 
in  the  universal  introduction  of  Luther's  Catechisms,  and  au- 
thority could  come  in  only  to  sanction  w^hat  was  already  fixed. 
So  truly  did  the  Shorter  Catechism  embody  the  simple  Christian 
faith,  as  to  become  by  the  spontaneous  acclamation  of  millions, 
a  Confession.  It  was  a  private  writing,  and  yet  beyond  all  the 
Confessions,  the  direct  pulsation  of  the  Church's  whole  heart 
is  felt  in  it.  It  was  written  in  the  rapture  of  the  purest  Cath- 
olicity, and  nothing  from  Luther's  pen  presents  him  more  per- 
fectly, simply  as  the  Christian,  not  as  the  prince  of  theolo- 
gians, but  as  a  lowly  believer  among  believers. 

In  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord  the  "  Electors, 
Princes,  and  Orders  of  the  Empire,  who  adhere  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,"  declare  in  conclusion :  "  We  propose  in  this 
Book  of  Concord  to  make  no  new  thing,  nor  in  any  eonfessionai 
respect  to  depart  from  the  truth  of  the  heavenly  authority, 
doctrine,  as  it  has  been  acknowledged  by  our  pious  fathers  and 
ourselves.  By  this  divine  doctrine  we  mean  that  which  is 
derived  from  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and 
embraced  in  the  three  Ancient  Creeds  ;  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
delivered  in  1530  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  ;  the  Apology 
which  followed  it ;  the  Schmalcald  Articles,  and  the  Cate- 
chisms of  Dr.  Luther.     Wherefore,  it  is  our  purpose  in  nothing 

*  Palmer  in  Herzog's:  R.  E.  viii.  618.     Do  :   Evang.  Katecliet  k.     Stuttg.  5.  ed. 
1864. 


286  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

to  depart  from  these  in  things  or  words,  hut  hy  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  with  one  accord,  to  abide  in  this  pious  Consent, 
and  to  reguLate  all  decisions  in  controversies  on  religion,  in 
accordance  therewith."-^  "  And  because  this  matter  of  reli- 
gion pertains  also  to  the  laity,  as  they  call  them,  and  bears  upon 
their  eternal  salvation,"  says  the  Formula  of  Concord,  "  we 
publicly  profess  that  we  also  embrace  the  Smaller  and  Largeii 
Catechisms  of  Luther,  regarding  them  as  a  sort  of  Bible  of  the 
laity,  wherein  all  those  things  are  briefly  comprehended  which 
in  the  Holy  Scripture  are  more  largely  treated,  and  the  knowl- 
ed2;e  of  which  is  of  need  to  a  Christian  man  unto  his  salvation." 
"  These  Catechisms  have  been  received  and  approved  by  all  the 
churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  are  everywhere 
used  in  the  churches  and  schools  publicly,  and  in  private  houses 
—  and  in  them  the  Christian  doctrine,  taken  from  God's  Word, 
is  set  forth  with  the  utmost  clearness  and  simplicity  for  the 
use  of  the  unlearned  and  of  the  laity."  f 

In  chronological  order,  as  writings,  the  Catechisms,  w^hich 
appeared  in  1529,  would  have  preceded  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, and  this  is  the  order  in  the  Thuringian  Corpus  of  1561 : 
but  the  chronology,so  far  as  the  Book  of  Concord  preserves  it 
in  its  arrangement,  is  that  of  acceptance  as  Confessions. 

It  would  seem  as  if  by  preeminent  necessity  the  Catechism 
of  a  Church  should   have   an    unmistakable   indorsement   as 

«  .  .         ,  oflacial  and  confessional.     It  is  the  Catechism  by 

Opinions     of 

eminent  men,  in  which  hcr  futurc  mluisters  and  her  people  are 
regard  to.  trained  in  the  faith,  in  early  life.     If  the  Church 

puts  into  the  hands  of  her  children  statements  of  doctrine  in 
any  respect  false,  she  is  the  betrayer  of  their  souls,  not  their 
guardian.  A  Catechism  which  embodies  the  pure  faith  in  the 
form  best  adapted  to  preserve  and  diftuse  it  among  the  people 
is  of  inestimable  value.  Such  a  Catechism,  if  we  may  accept 
the  judgment  of  the  wisest  and  best  men,  our  Church  possesses. 
"  It  may  be  bought  for  sixpence,"  said  Jonas,  "  but  six  thou- 
sand worlds  would  not  pay  for  it."  "  Luther,"  says  Polycarp 
Lyser,  J  "  has  written  a  short  Catechism,  more  precious  than 

^Miiller.  21 :  209  :  518.5.  t  t>o-  ^'^^■^' 

J  In  the  Dedication  of  Chcmnitiii  Loci. 


OPINIONS   OF  EMINENT  MEN.  287 

gold  and  gems.  In  it  the  purity  of  the  Clmrch  doctrine,  drawn 
from  prophets  and  apostles,  is  so  compacted  into  one  entire 
body  of  doctrine,  and  set  forth  in  such  luminous  words,  as  not 
unworthily  to  be  esteemed  a  Canon,  as  that  which  is  drawn 
entire  from  the  Canonical  Scriptures.  I  can  affirm  with  truth, 
that  in  this  one  little  book  are  embraced  so  many  and  so  great 
things,  that  if  all  faithful  preachers,  throughout  their  lives, 
should  confine  themselves  in  their  sermons  to  the  hidden  wis- 
dom of  God  shut  up  in  these  few  words,  explaining  them 
rightly  to  the  people,  and  opening  them  at  large  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  they  could  never  exhaust  that  boundless  abyss." 
"  If,"  says  Matthesius,  *  "  Luther,  in  his  whole  course,  had  done 
nothing  more  than  to  introduce  these  Catechisms  into  the 
family,  the  school,  and  the  pulpit,  and  to  restore  to  the  home 
the  blessings  at  meat,  and  the  prayers  for  morning  and  night, 
the  world  could  never  thank  him  enough,  or  repay  him." 
"  Such,"  says  Seckendorf,  f  "  is  the  union  of  pure  doctrine  and 
of  spirituality  in  the  Lesser  Catechism,  that  in  its  kind  it  has 
no  equal .  .  Above  all  is  its  explanation  of  the  Apostles'  Creed 
admirable."  "  Is  there  an  eloquence  which  is  sufficient  —  not 
to  do  full  justice  to  the  theme  —  but  in  some  degree  to  vindi- 
cate the  value  of  the  book  ?  As  I  look  upon  the  Churches 
everywhere,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessing  it  brings,  I  confess 
that  it  surpasses  all  the  range  of  my  thought.  If  I  must  make 
the  effort  to  express  my  regard  for  it,  I  acknowledge  that  I 
have  received  more  consolation,  and  a  firmer  foundation  of  my 
salvation  from  Luther's  Little  Catechism,  than  from  the  huge 
volumes  of  all  the  Latin  and  Greek  Church  writers  together. 
And  although  excellent  theologians,  not  without  success,  have 
imitated  Luther  and  written  Catechisms,  Luther's  Cate- 
chism in  the  judgment  of  all  good  men  deserves  the  palm.":}: 
Matthes,  §  who  urges  various  objections  to  the  Catechisms, 
nevertheless  adds :  "  The  little  Catechism  of  Luther,  wath  its 
explanations,  brief,  adapted  to  the  people,  childlike,  and  at  the 
same  time  profound,  meeting  the  wants  of  the  mind  and  of  the 

*  Sermons  on  the  Life  of  Luther.  f  Historia  Lutheranismi.  i.  g  61. 

X  Heshusius,  quoted  in  Fabricii :  Centif.  Luther,  ad  Cap.  Ixxxii. 
\  Comparative  Symbolik  alL  ChristL  Confession.  18oi. 


288  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

heart,  is  still  the  Catechism  which  impresses  itself  most  readily 
on  the  memory  of  children,  and  more  than  any  other  produces 
the  spirit  and  life  of  religion  in  them.     If  this  be  still  the  case, 
who  carx  measure  the  blessing  it  brought  in  the   era  of  the 
Reformation,  when  a  new  epoch  of  the  religious   nurture  of 
the  people  and  of  their  children  began  wnth  it  ?  "     "  There  are 
as  many  things  in  it  as  there  are  w^ords,  as  many  uses  as  there 
are  points."  *     ''  It  is  a  true  jewel  of  our   Church,  a  veritable 
masterpiece."!      "It  is   impossible  to  estimate,"  says  Koll- 
ner,:J:  "  the  value  of  these  Catechisms  for  their  time.     Luther 
o-ave  in  them  not  only  a  brief  sketch  of  the  fundamental  truths 
of  the  Gospel,  but  restored  to  life  the  actual  Catechizing,  the 
primary  instruction  in  religion.     The  form  of  the  Catechism 
was  as  fitting  as  its  matter.     Luther  was  a  man  of  the  people  ; 
like  Paul  he  had  the  gift  of  speaking  to  the  masses,  as  no  one 
else  could,  so  that  the  simplest  understood  him,  and  heart  and 
soul  were  alike  touched.     And  this  language  of  the  heart,  sus- 
tained by  Lather's  whole  mode  of  thinking  as  a  theologian,  is 
the  key-note  of  his  Catechisms.     They  bear  the  true  impress 
of  his  joyous  assurance,  of  the  earnest  heartiness  in  which  he 
was  unique,  and  of  all  that  true  piety  which  here  presents  in 
conjunction  the  light  and  kindling  which  illumine  the  mind  and 
revive  the  affections."     Ranke's  Avords  ||  may  fitly  close  these 
eulogies:  "The  Catechism  which  Luther  published  in  1529,  and 
of  which  he  says  that,  old  a  Doctor  as  he  was,  he  himself  used  it 
as  his  prayer,  is  as  childlike  as  it  is  profound,  as  easy  of  grasp 
as  it  is  unfathomable,  as  simple  as  it  is  sublime.      Happy  he 
who  nourishes  his  soul  with  it,  who  clings  fast  to  it  !     For 
every  moment  he  possesses  a  changeless  consolation  —  he  has 
under  a  thin  shell  that  kernel  of  truth  which  is  enough  for  the 
wisest  of  the  wise." 

We  now  approach  the  part  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  with 
the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  which,  the  Book  as  a  whole  is 

Formula   of    l^^ely  to  staud  or  fall.     If  the  Book  of  Concord  did 
Concord.  ^^^  coutaln  thc  Formula  of  Concord,  it  is  very  cer- 

*  Dr.  I.  F.  Mayer.  f  Baixmgarten. 

J  Die  gute  Sache,  157. 

II  Deutsche  Ge«ch.  im  Zeitalt.  d.  Reformat.  Berl.   1839.  ii.  445. 


FIRST  DIVISION— PRELIMINARIES  289 

tain  that  the  moat  decided  and  persistent  opposition  it  lias 
experienced  would  never  have  been  raised.  There  is  no  in- 
stance on  record  in  which  any  State,  city,  or  indivi«lual,  accept- 
ing the  Formula  of  Concord,  rejected  or  objected  to  any  other 
of  the  Symbols.  To  decide  upon  acknowledging  it,  is  to  decide 
really  upon  the  acknowledgment  of  the  whole.  Was  it  needed  ? 
Was  it  a  restorer  of  concord,  or  a  promoter  of  discord  ?  Is  it 
a  pure  witness  of  the  one  unchanging  faith  ?  Has  it  been 
stamped  by  the  Church  as  an  authoritative  witness  of  her 
faith,  and  is  it  as  such  of  force  and  value  still  ?  On  these 
questions  it  is  impossible  to  form  an  intelligent  Divisions  of  its 
opinion  without  recalling  the  main  facts  in  the  his-  ''''*'"y- 
tory  of  this  great  document.  This  History  may  be  divided 
into  FOUR  parts.  First  :  The  events  which  rendered  necessary 
the  preparation  of  a  new  Confession.  Second  :  The  events 
terminating  in  the  preparation  of  the  Torgau  Formula.  Third  : 
The  development  of  the  Torgau  Formula  into  the  Bergen 
Book,  which  in  its  revised  form  appeared  as  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  Dresden,  1580.  Fourth  : 
The  subsequent  reception  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  * 

First  :  Among  the  necessitating  causes  and  preliminaries  of 
the  preparation  of  the  Formula,  may  be  mentioned : 

I.  Melanchthon's  vacillations,  real  and  seeming.  These  were 
due  to  his  timidity  and  gentleness  of  character,  tinged  as  it 
was  with  melancholy  ;  his  aversion  to  controversy  ;  his  philo- 
sophical, humanistic,  and  classical  cast  of  thought,  and  his 
extreme  delicacy  in  matter  of  style  ;  his  excessive  reverence  for 
the  testimony  of  the  Church,  and  of  her  ancient  writers ;  his 
anxiety  that  the  whole  Communion  of  the  West  First  division. 
should  be  restored  to  harmony  ;  or  that,  if  this  were  p-'""'"-*«- 
impossible,  the  Protestant  elements,  at  least,  should  be  at  peace. 
The  coworking  of  these,  in  different  proportions  at  different  eras, 
produced  inconsistencies  of  the  most  extraordinary  kind,  and, 
when  Luther  was  gone  and  the  intellectual  headship  of  the 
Reformation  devolved  upon  Melanchthon,  the  lack  of  self-con- 
sistence and  firmness,  which  had  been  his  misfortune  as  a  man, 
assumed  the  character  of  a  public  calamity.     The  whole  work 

*  C.  G.  F.  Walch:   Breviarium  L.  S.  E.  L.  198-219. 
19 


290  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of  the  Reformation,  as  represented  in  Melanchthon,  seemed 
destined  to  fall  into  chaos.  Everywhere,  his  works  in  their 
various  editions,  were  in  the  hands  of  the  friends  and  foes  of  the 
Conservative  Reformation.  The  friends  of  that  Reformatioti 
were  embarrassed  and  confounded,  and  its  enemies  delighted 
and  encouraged,  by  perceiving  endless  diversities  of  statement 
in  the  editions  of  books,  rapidly  succeeding  each  other,  books 
which,  in  their  first  form,  Luther  had  endorsed  as  of  Canonical 
purity  and  w^orthy  of  immortality.  The  very  Confessions  of 
the  Church,  determined  by  her  authorities,  and  signed  by  her 
representatives,  were  emended,  enlarged  here,  abridged  there, 
changed  in  structure  and  in  statement,  as  the  restless  spirit  of 
refining  in  thought  or  style  moved  Melanchthon.  All  his 
works  show  the  tinge  of  his  mind  at  the  time  of  their  issue, 
whether  affected  by  his  hopes  that  Rome  would  be  softened, 
or  roused  by  the  elusive  prospect  of  real  union  with  the  less 
radical  part  of  the  Zwinglians.  Melanchthon  fell  into  a  hal- 
lucination by  which  his  own  peace  of  mind  was  wrecked,  his 
Christian  consistency  seriously  compromised,  the  spirit  of 
partisanship  developed,  the  Church  distracted  and  well  nigh 
lost.  This  was  the  hallucination  that  peace  could  be  restored 
by  ambiguous  formulas,  accepted  indeed  by  both  parties,  but 
understood  in  different  senses.  It  is  a  plan  which  has  often 
been  tried  and  which  never  succeeds,  w^here  men  are  in  earnest. 
It  not  only  does  not  bind  men  more  closely,  but  leaves  them 
more  widely  alienated,  more  full  of  bitter  mistrust.  Men  must 
be  honest  in  their  difference,  if  they  are  ever  to  be  honest  in 
their  agreement. 

The  three  works  of  Melanchthon  in  which  the  chano;es  were 
most  noted  and  most  mischievous,  are  1  :  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession ;  2:  the  Apology;  and  3:  the  Loci  Communes. 

II.  Connected  closely  with  Melanchthon 's  vacillations,  vari- 
ous Controversies  rose  among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  wdiich  may  be  stated  as  gcnericall3^  the  conflict  be- 
tween the  PiiiLiPPiSTS,  or  adherents  of  Melanchthon,  and  the 
more  consistent  Lutherans.  The  great  name  of  Melanchthon 
was  used  to  shield  much  which  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
he  would  have  approved.     Much  that  he  wrote  could  be  taken 


MELANCHTHOK  291 

in  two  senses.  The  Liitheran-Pliilippists,  who  took  the  more 
charitable  view,  put  the  })est  construction  on  them,  and  were 
rehictant  to  abandon  one  to  whom  the  Church  owed  so  much, 
and  whom  Luther  had  loved  so  dearly.  The  Reformed  put 
upon  Melanchthon's  words  the  construction  most  favorable  to 
themselves.  The  Crypto-Calvinists  made  them  their  covert. 
The  enemies  of  the  Reformation  appealed  to  them  as  proof 
that  the  first  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  Reformers  had 
been  abandoned.  Whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  Melanch- 
thon's words  in  the  disputed  cases,  this  much  is  certain,  that 
they  practically  operated  as  if  the  worse  sense  were  the  real  one, 
and  their  mischievousness  was  not  diminished  but  aggravated 
by  their  obscurity  and  double  meaning.  They  did  the  work 
of  avowed  error,  and  yet  could  not  be  reached  as  candid  error 
might.  We  have  twenty-eight  large  volumes  of  Melanch- 
thon's writings  —  and  at  this  hour,  impartial  and  learned  men 
are  not  agreed  as  to  what  were  his  views  on  some  of  the  pro- 
foundest  questions  of  Church  doctrine,  on  which  Melanchthon 
was  writing  all  his  life. 

III.  1560.  A  great  centre  of  this  controversy  was  furnished 
in  the  Philippic  Corpus  Doctrine,  1560,  to  which  the  Phil- 
ippists,  especially  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony,  desired  to  give 
Confessional  authority,  an  effort  which  was  resisted  by  the 
consistent  Lutherans  on  the  ground  that  it  contained  very 
serious  errors.  It  was  in  the  unionistic  part  of  our  Church, 
not  the  consistent  part,  that  the  tendency  first  appeared  to  put 
forth  bulky  Confessions,  and  the  necessity  for  the  Book  of 
Concord  was  largely  generated  by  the  greatly  larger  Bodies  of 
doctrine  Avhich  were  set  forth  by  the  Philippists. 

The  Philippic  or  Meissen  German  Corpus  of  1560,  contained: 
1.  The  three  General  Creeds;  2.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
from  the  Wittenberg  ed.  1553,  enlarged  and  altered ;  3.  The 
Apology  ;  4.  The  Repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  writ- 
ten in  1551,  to  be  sent  to  the  Council  of  Trent ;  5.  The  Loci 
Theologici ;  6.  The  Examen  Ordinandorum ;  7.  The  Answer 
to  the  idolatrous  Articles  of  Bavaria  ;  and  8.  A  Confutation 
of  the  Mahometan  Error  of  Servetus.  The  corresponding 
Latin  Corpus  of  the  same  date,  contains  all  the  writino-s  em- 


292  CONSERVATIVE    REFOBMATIOX. 

braced  in  the  German:  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  Vo^- 
riata  varied  of  1542  ;  and  there  is  added  to  the  whole  Me- 
lanchthon's  Reply  to  Stancar. 

As  this  Corpus  became  the  special  rival  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, and  the  controversy  so  largely  clustered  around  the  ques- 
tion, AVhich  should  be  preferred,  this 'Corpus,  or  that  Book?  — 
it  may  be  well  to  note : 

1.  That  the  Corpus  is  greatly  more  bulky  than  the  Book  of 
Concord. 

2.  With  the  exception  of  the  General  Creeds  it  is  entirely 
composed  of  Melanchthon's  writings.  Xot  a  line  exclusively 
Luther's  is  in  it.  The  Catechisms  are  not  there  ;  not  even  the 
Schmalcald  Articles  are  there.  It  was  a  silent  dishonor  put 
upon  Luther,  and  his  faith  and  work,  apparently  in  the  name 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  by  the  men  who  afterwards  clamored 
that  Melanchthon  was  not  treated  with  due  respect  in  the  Book, 
which  yet  gives  the  place  of  honor  to  Melanchthon's  greatest 
confessional  works,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Apology, 
and  contains  also  his  Tractate  on  the  power  of  the  Pope. 

3.  It  is  largely  composed  of  private  writings  on  which  no 
official  action  of  the  Church  was  taken. 

4.  The  texts  of  its  most  important  parts  are  changed  greatly, 
and  corrupted. 

5.  There  is  much  in  it  cumbrous,  and  wholly  unsuited  to 
form  a  Confession. 

G.  It  is  ambiguous  on  some  vital  points,  and  unsound  on 
others. 

7.  A  treachery  and  double-dealing  unworthy  of  our  holy 
faith,  and  especially  condemned  by  the  frank  directness,  char- 
acteristic of  Lutheran  Christianity,  underlies  the  whole  concep- 
tion of  the  issue  of  such  a  Corpus. 

IV.  The  earlier  Saxon  Crypto-Calvinism,  which  the  Wit- 
tenberg theologians  embodied  in  various  publications.  Confes- 
sing one  system  of  faith,  it  held  and  furtively  promoted  the 
doctrines  of  another,  or  ignored  the  truths  it  did  not  openly 
assail.  Many  were  involved  in  its  meshes,  who  imperfectly 
understood  its  nature,  and  were  slow  to  believe  the  worst  of  it. 
This   greatly  complicated  the  difficulties,  and  embittered  the 


FIRST  PERIOD.  293 

controversies  of  this  century.  Again  and  again  it  circum- 
vented and  deceived  the  very  men  who  were  engaged  in  the 
effort  to  expose  and  overthrow  it. 

V.  1509.  The  alarming  state  of  things  led  to  various  consul- 
tations on  the  part  of  our  theologians,  who  heartily  desired  to 
save  the  Church  from  being  choked  with  the  upspringing  of 
error,  or  from  being  trodden  down  and  torn  to  pieces  in  the 
effort  to  root  it  out.  Chief  among  them  were  James  Andrew, 
of  Tubingen,  who  at  an  early  stage  of  his  efforts  made  a  jour- 
ney into  Lower  Saxony,  1569,  Martin  Chemnitz,  David  Chy- 
TRAEUS,  and  N'iciiolas  Selneccer,  all  of  them  great  theo- 
logians, moderate  in  spirit,  earnest  Christians,  and  intensely 
devoted  to  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  Church. 

VI.  1570.  A  Convention  was  convened  at  Zerbst,  by  the 
Electors  of  Saxony  and  Brandenburg,  and  by  Julius,  Duke  of 
Brunswick,  for  the  promotion  of  concord  among  the  theologi- 
ans, 1570.  Andrese  was  satisfied  with  the  resufts  of  the  Con- 
vention, but  they  did  not  correspond  fully  with  the  expecta- 
tion of  others.  Heshus  wrote  against  the  Convention  and 
against  Andreae.  So  much  had  men  in  fact  come  to  distrust 
what  was  most  specious,  that  Andrese  was  suspected  by  some 
of  secret  connivance  with  the  errors,  to  the  casting  out  of 
which  he  w^as  devoting  his  life. 

VII.  1573.  Two  Books,  designed  to  promote  peace,  were  pre- 
pared by  Andreae  and  sent  to  the  theologians  of  Lower  Saxony 
for  subscription:  1.  Six  sermons  on  the  divisions  which  had 
arisen  between  1548  and  1573  ;  2.  An  exposition  of  the  exist- 
ing controversies.  The  first  was  sent  in  print.  The  second, 
prepared  by  advice  of  Chemnitz,  remained  in  manuscript. 

VIII.  1574.  The  Elector al-Torgau  Articles  were  written 
by  the  Saxon  divines,  by  order  of  the  Elector  Augustus,  1574. 
These  Articles  were  suspected,  perhaps  not  without  reason,  of 
making  concessions  to  Calvinistic  errors.  And  yet  upon  the 
surface  no  charge  seemed  more  groundless.  He  who  reads 
them,  supposing  them  to  have  been  written  in  good  faith,  will 
be  apt  to  see  in  them  a  thorough  rejection  and'confutation  of 
the  Calvinistic  Sacramentarianism.  So  perfect  is  the  deception, 
if  it  be  one,  that  Selneccer,  on  a  first  reading,  was  delighted 


294  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

with  them,  and  congratulated  the  Church  of  God,  that  at  Tor- 
gau,  so  pure  and  sincere  a  Lutheran  Confession  had  been  set 
forth.  He  who  reads  them  now,  is  more  likely  to  be  surprised 
at  Selneccer's  change  from  this  opinion,  than  at  his  having 
formed  it.  The  Calvinists  themselves  complained  bitterly  of 
the  severity  of  these  Articles  against  them.  Their  leaders  are 
named,  their  views  stated  and  refuted.  Beza,  who  was  named 
in  them  more  than  once,  wrote  an  answer  to  them.  Hospinian 
resrards  them  as  the  basis  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  >  Even 
liutter  *  says  that  ''  the  something  of  the  Calvinistic  jugglings 
latent  in  them  is  found  in  very  few  places,"  and  attributes 
their  defects  either  to  the  writers'  want  of  full  information 
about  the  points  at  issue,  or  to  a  charity  which  hoped  by  soft- 
ness of  style  to  win  the  enemies  of  truth  to  accept  it.  In  a 
time  in  which  sad  experience  had  found  no  reason  for  jealous 
care,  these  Torgau  Articles  would  probably  have  been  regarded 
by  all  as  Selneccer  first  regarded  them.  A  long  succession  of 
causes  of  distrust  can  alone  account  for  their  being  suspected. 

IX.  1575.  The  Suabian-Saxon  Formula  of  Concord,  mainly 
the  work  of  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus,  appeared  in  1575. 
This  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Confession  of  the 
Churches  of  Lower  Saxony,  prepared  by  the  same  hands,  1571. 
The  "  Exposition  "  of  Andrese  was  well  received  by  the  Wiir- 
temberg  theologians,  but  the  Doctors  of  Lower  Saxony,  dissat- 
isfied with  it,  desired  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus  to  elaborate  on 
it  as  a  basis  the  Suabian-Saxon  Formula,  which  was  sent  back 
after  careful  revision  by  the  representatives  of  the  churches  to 
Wlirtemberg.  This  Formula  became  a  general  ground-work 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

The  Second  Period  of  the  history  of  the  Book  of  Concord 
follows  the  preparation  of  the  Suabian-Saxon  For- 

Second  Period.  -,        ,^  ^  >--•.  ,  t  -ii  i«  f      ^ 

mula  (lo75)  and  ends  with  the  completion  ot  the 
Torgau  Formula.  The  most  important  points  embraced  in  it, 
are  these : 

I.  157G.  Feb.  The  Convention  at  Lichtenherg.  Augustus, 
Elector  of  Saxony,  saw  that  though  the  work  of  uniting  the 
Clivirch  was  begun,  it  was  very  far  from  completion.     Under 

*  Concordia  Concor   cli.  v. 


SECOND   PERIOD.  295 

the  influence  of  this  feeling,  (N'ov.  21,  1575)  he  sent  to  his 
Privy  Council,  in  his  own  hand-writing,  a  paper,  worthy  of  a 
Christian  prince.  It  took  just  views  of  the  peril  of  the  time 
and  of  its  source,  and  so  wisely  marked  out  the  principles,  after- 
wards acted  on,  on  which  alone  peace  could  be  restored,  that  it 
may  be  regarded  as  having  laid  "  the  first  foundation-stone  of 
the  Work  of  Concord."  "  We  are  to  look,"  said  he,  "  more  to 
the  glory  of  God,  than  to  that  of  dead  men."  "  Unity  among 
us  who  claim  to  receive  the  Augsburg  Confession,  is  impos- 
sible, while  every  land  has  a  separate  Corpus  Doctrinse.  In 
this  way  many  are  misled:  the  theologians  are  embittered 
against  each  other,  and  the  breach  is  constantly  widened.  If 
the  evil  be  not  cured,  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  by  this  em- 
bittering and  confusion  on  the  part  of  the  theologians,  we, 
and  our  posterity,  w^ill  be  utterly  carried  away  from  the  pure 
doctrine.  My  plan  is  that  we  w^ho  confess  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, shall  unite  and  compare  views  in  a  friendly  way  ;  that 
three  or  four  peace-loving  theologians,  and  an  equal  number  of 
Civil  Counsellors  nominated  by  the  heads  of  the  States,  meet 
together,  bringing  with  them  the  different  Corpora  Doctrinse  ; 
that  they  take  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  their  rule  (Richt- 
schnur) ;  that  they  compare  the  Corpora,  and  take  counsel 
together  how,  out  of  the  whole,  to  make  one  Corpus,  which 
shall  be  the  common  Confession  of  us  all."  This  paper  led  to 
the  assembling,  (Feb.  1576,)  of  the  Convention  at  Lichtenberg, 
composed  of  theologians  marked  by  that  love  of  peace  on  which 
the  noble  Elector  justly  laid  so  much  stress.  These  twelve" 
theologians,  among  whom  were  Paul  Crell  of  Wittenberg,  and 
Selneccer,  determined  upon  three  things  as  essential  to  the 
establishment  of  concord  : 

1.  All  private  self-seeking  and  ambition,  all  personal  griefs 
and  contentions,  all  suspicions  of  injury  and  desire  of  revenge, 
all  the  controversies  and  controversial  writino^s  between 
brethren,  in  the  past,  were  to  be  given  to  eternal  oblivion  — 
were  to  be  "  as  if  they  had  never  been." 

2.  The  Philippic  Corpus  Doctrinse  was  confessed  to  have 
been  the  occasion  of  misunderstanding.  "  That  useful  and 
good  book,  written  by  the  sainted  Philip,  had  been  commended 


2t)6  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

by  us,  and  introduced  into  the  churches  and  schools;  some 
had  styled  it  a  ]S"orm  of  doctrine  and  Confession.  This  had 
been  understood  as  designed  to  take  the  useful  and  admirable 
spiritual  writings  of  Luther,  of  precious  memory,  out  of  the 
hands  of  pastors  and  people.  Certain  points  in  the  Corpus,  as 
Free  Will,  Definition  of  the  Gospel,  the  Lord's  Supper,  want 
of  sufficient  explicitness  toward  the  Sacramentarians,  had  been 
understood  in  a  sense,  or  distorted  to  it,  of  which  our  Churches 
have  known,  and  now  know,  nothing."  While  they  therefore 
regard  it  as  "  an  admirable,  good  and  useful  book,"  they  re- 
nounce it  as  a  "  Symbol,  Norm,  or  Rule."  "  The  l^orm  of  our 
doctrine  and  Confession  is  this.  We  set  and  name,  first  of  all, 
and  unconditionally,  the  Writings  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles, 
the  three  (Ecumenical  Creeds,  and  then  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, the  first.  Unaltered,  its  Apology,  the  Catechisms  of  Lu- 
ther and  the  Schmalcald  Articles.  If  any  one,  because  of  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  desires  to  add  Luther  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  we  would  heartily  agree  with  him."  They 
then  speak  with  severity  of  Crypto-Calvinistic  books  which 
had  been  furtively  prepared  and  circulated,  and  advise  the  re- 
pression of  them. 

3.  They  proposed  that  a  Commission  of  theologians  loving 
truth  and  peace,  taking  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  rule  and 
following  its  order,  should  prepare  a  clear  statement  in  re- 
gard to  the  doctrines  involved  in  controversy.  They  expressed 
their  approval  of  the  great  divines  who  had  already  done  so 
much  in  this  direction,  Chytrseus,  Chemnitz,  and  Andre?e,  and 
added  the  name  of  Marbach. 

II.  1575.  Nov.  14.  The  Saxon,  Henneherg  and  WUrtemherg 
union  of  action.  Though  the  earlier  steps  of  this  concerted 
action  preceded  the  Lichtenberg  Convention,  it  yet,  because  of 
its  close  connection  with  the  Maulbrunn  Formula,  is  more 
naturally  placed  here. 

1.  It  was  said  by  an  old  French  Chronicler,  that  the  English 
are  sad  even  in  their  mirth.  It  might  be  said  of  our  pious 
Princes  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  that  they  were  religious  even 
at  their  amusements.  The  Elector  Augustus  met  George 
Ernest,  the  old  Count  of  Ilenneberg,  at  the  hunt,  and  in  a  cou- 


SECOND   PERIOD.  297 

versation  on  the  troubles  of  the  time,  Baid  that  he  would 
gladly  correct  the  evils,  especially  those  charged  upon  the 
Wittenberg  theologians,  if  he  could  be  furnished  with  a  dis- 
tinct statement  both  of  the  false  doctrines  charged,  and  of  the 
truths  opposed  to  them.  The  Count  promised  to  have  a  paper, 
of  the  kind  desired,  drawn  up. 

2.  The  Count  of  Henneberg  (^ov.  1575,)  met  Louis  Duke 
of  Wiirtemberg,  at  the  nuptials  of  the  Duke  to  the  daughter 
of  Charles,  Margrave  of  Baden.  When  the  festivities  were  over 
and  the  other  princes  had  departed,  the  Count,  the  Duke,  and 
the  Margrave,  agreed  to  commit  to  Luke  Osiander  and  Bidem- 
bach  the  preparation  of  such  a  writing  as  the  Count  had 
promised. 

3.  These  divines  laid  as  the  groundwork  of  their  paper  the 
Suabian-Saxon  Formula  (see  Divis.  First  viii.),  compressing  it 
and  adding  proof  passages  from  Scripture,  and  citations  from 
Luther.     Their  work  was  finished  !N"ov.  14,  1575. 

III.  1576.  Jan.  19.    The  Maulhrunn  Formula. 

1.  The  document  thus  prepared  was  submitted  to  a  number 
of  theologians,  delegates  of  the  princes.  They  tested  and 
approved  it  in  the  Convention  at  the  Cloister  of  Maulhrunn 
(Jan.  19,  1576.) 

2.  The  Maulhrunn  Formula  was  sent,  Feb.  9,  1576,  by  the 
Count  of  Henneberg  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  The  Elector 
had  meanwhile  obtained  (Jan.  17,  1576)  a  copy  of  the  Suabian- 
Saxon  Formula  (Div.  First,  viii.)  from  Duke  Julius.  The 
Elector  now  placed  both  the  Formulas,  the  Maulhrunn  and 
Suabian-Saxon,  in  the  hands  of  Andreae,  for  his  advice. 

.  3.  Andrese  pursued  a  course  in  the  matter  worthy  of  his 
venerable  name,  and  of  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  at  the 
great  crisis.  Though  the  Suabian-Saxon  Formula  was  built 
so  largely  upon  his  own  labors,  he  confessed  that  it  was  unfitted 
for  its  end  by  the  irregularities  of  its  style,  its  copious  use 
of  Latin  words,  and  its  diftuseness,  while  its  indeterminateness 
toward  Melanchthon's  writino;s  mio'ht  o^ive  rise  to  new  contro- 
versies.  The  Maulhrunn  Formula,  on  the  other  hand,  which 
was  in  some  sense  an  abridgment  of  the  Suabian-Saxon,  was 
too  brief.     His  counsel,  therefore,  was  that  the  two  should  be 


298  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

made  the  basis  of  a  third  Formula,  which,  combining  the 
virtues  of  both,  should  avoid  their  faults. 

4.  This  counsel  of  Andrese  was  thoroughly  approved  of  by 
the  Elector.  As  the  great  function  of  the  Formula  of  the 
future  was  to  guard  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  to  this  end  it  was  necessary  to  fix  and  preserve  its 
uncorrupted  text,  the  first  movement  of  the  Elector  was 
toward  the  securing  of  the  copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
in  German,  made  by  Spalatin  during  the  Diet,  in  1530. 

lY.  1576,  May.  The  Convention  at  Torgau.  The  Elector  did 
not  delay  the  now  promising  movement  toward  unity.  He  made 
the  arrangements  for  a  convention  of  theologians,  of  different 
lands,  at  Torgau.  Eighteen,  out  of  twenty  invited,  appeared. 
Eleven  of  the  twelve  delegates  at  Lichtenberg  Avere  of  the 
number,  of  whom  Selneccer  was  the  most  distinguished. 
The  other  names  of  greatest  renown  are  Andrese,  Chytraeus, 
Chemnitz,  Musculus,  and  Corner.  The  deliberations  were  held 
at  the  Castle  of  Hartenfels,  the  Rock  of  Hardness,  a  name  of 
happy  suggestion  for  confessors  of  the  truth  in  troublous 
times.  The  inspection  of  the  two  Formulas,  the  Suabian- 
Saxon  and  the  Maulbrunn,  produced  at  once  a  oncurrence  in 
Andrepe's  opinion,  that  the  one  was  too  diffuse,  the  othei-  too 
brief,  and  an  adoption  of  his  advice  to  fuse  both  into  a  7:^6 w 
Formula.  They  laid  as  the  basis  of  the  new,  the  S  j^.bian- 
Saxon  Formula,  departing  occasionally  from  its  arrar.gement, 
pursuing,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  order  of  Articles  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  inserting  an  Article  on  the  Descent 
into  Hell. 

V.  Thus  originated  the  Book  or  Formula  of  Tcrgau.,  (1576). 
after  the  toils  and  anxieties  of  seven  years.  The  Lichtenberg 
Convention  had  determined  the  general  principle  on  which  the 
Concord  should  be  established  ;  the  Suabian-Saxon  Formula 
had  furnished  its  basis ;  the  Maulbrunn  Formula  had  aided  in 
the  superstructure  ;  the  necessary  combinations,  additions  and 
emendations,  had  been  happily  made  at  Torgau.  Varied  as 
had  been  tbe  difficulties,  and  wide  as  had  been  the  gulf  which 
once  yawned  as  if  it  would  swallow  up  the  Church,  the  accord 
of  spirit  had  now  been  sucli,  that  in  ten  days  the  work  of 


FORMULA  — HISTORY  OF  THIRD  PERIOD.        299 

Torgau  was  finished.  The  theologians  who  met  May  29,  were 
ready  with  the  Torgau  Opinion  (Bedenken)  June  7tli,  1576. 
All  the  theologians  had  home  an  active  part  in  its  preparation, 
but  Andreee  and  Chemnitz  are  justly  regarded  as  its  authors. 
The  TuiRD  Period  of  the  history  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
opens  with  the  sendins;  forth  of  the  Torsrau  Form-      ^.       ,     ^,. 

^  o  o  lorimila.    His- 

ula    for    examination    by    the    Churches,    (1576),  tory    of  Third 
and  ends   with   the   publication   of  the   Book   of 
Concord,  1580. 

I.  The  Elector  Augustus,  (June  7,  1576),  having  carefully 
examined  the  Torgau  Formula,  and  having  laid  it  before  his 
counsellors,  submitted  it  to  the  Evangelical  orders  of  the  Em- 
pire, in  order  that  it  might  be  thoroughly  tested  in  every  part. 

II.  The  work  was  everywhere  received  with  interest. 
Twenty  conventions  of  theologians  were  held  in  the 
course  of  three  months.  The  Formula  was  scrutinized  in 
every  part.  The  work  found  little  favor  with  the  Calvinists, 
whether  secret  or  avowed.  The  Reformed  held  a  Conference  at 
Frankfurt,  Sept.,  1577,  to  avert  what  they  considered  a  con- 
demnation of  their  party.  Delegates  were  there  from  other 
countries.  Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  sent  ambassadors  to 
several  of  the  Evangelical  States,  and  especially  to  the  Elector 
Augustus,  to  avert  the  imaginary  condemnation.  The  Elector, 
in  a  courteous  but  firm  letter,  assured  the  Queen,  through  the 
King  of  Denmark,  that  the  object  of  the  Formula  was  to 
correct  and  prevent  errors  within  the  Churches  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  not  to  pass  condemnation  on  other  Churches. 
Some  of  the  friends  of  Melanchthon  thought  that  the  Formula 
failed  in  not  recognizing  his  merits.  On  the  part  of  a  few 
theologians,  there  was  a  scarce  suppressed  ill-humor  that  they 
had  not  been  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  the  Formula. 
But  the  great  mass  of  the  twenty-five  responses  testified  to  a 
general  approval  of  the  Formula,  and  showed  that  the  pure 
faith  still  lived.  Many  opinions  of  great  value  were  expressed 
involving  no  change  in  doctrine,  but  suggesting  various  addi- 
tions, omissions,  and  alterations  of  lano;ua2:e.  It  was  clear 
that  the  book  had  not  yet  reached  the  shape  in  which  it  could 
fully  meet  the  wants  of  the  Church. 


300  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION: 

III.  As  soon  as  the  answers  were  received,  the  Elector 
Augustus,  with  the  concurrence  of  Brunswick  and  Wlirtemberg, 
called  together  the  three  greatest  of  the  co-workers,  Chemnitz, 
of  Brunswick,  Andreae,  of  Tubingen,  and  Selneccer,  of  Leipzig, 
to  revise  the  Torgau  Formula  in  the  light  of  the  expressed 
judgments  of  the  Churches.  They  met,  with  the  cordial 
consent  of  the  Abbot  Ulner,  at  the  Cloister  of  Bergen,  near 
Ma<rdebur2:. 

1.  Here  the  Torgau  Formula  was  submitted  to  \t^  first  revision^ 
March  1  -14, 1577.  The  work  was  done  ver}^  conscientiously. 
Every  suggestion  was  carefully  weighed,  and  estimated  at  its  real 
value,  the  treatment  w^as  made  more  compact,  and  an  Epitome 
of  the  Solid  Declaration  was  prepared.  The  theory,  that  a 
second  revision  was  made  in  April,  at  Bergen,  has  little  to 
sustain  it. 

2.  The  second  and  final  revision  of  the  Torgau  Formula 
took  place  at  Bergen,  May  19-28,  1577.  To  the  "  first  Trium- 
virate" Brandenburg  added  Corner,  and  Musculus,  of  Frank- 
fort on  the  Oder,  and  Mecklenburg,  at  the  special  request  of 
Augustus,  sent  Chytrseus  of  Rostock.  Though  they  passed 
over  the  Formula  with  minute  care,  they  found  little  to  change. 

IV.  The  last  touches  were  put  to  the  work.  At  this  stage, 
(May  28, 1577,)  we  know  it  as  the  Bergen  Formula.  It  was  to 
be  known  in  history  as  the  Formula  of  Concord,  for  this  it  was. 
Between  this  time  and  its  publication  in  1580,  no  change  was 
made  in  it.  There  waited  in  it  a  silent  mio-ht  which  the  mastic 
touch  of  the  press  was  to  liberate,  to  its  great  mission  in  the 
world. 

V.  But  wonderful  as  had  been  the  work  done,  much  yet 
remained  to  be  done.  When  the  Church  first  saw  clearly  the 
way  in  which  peace  was  to  be  won,  she  saw  that  it  involved 
four  problems:  1.  The  determination  what  writings  were  to 
be  her  standard  of  teaching ;  where  was  to  be  found  a  state- 
ment of  doctrine  which  the  Lutheran  Church  could  accept  un- 
reservedly as  her  Confession.  2.  The  preparation  of  a  Confession 
which  should  apply  the  doctrines  of  holy  Scripture,  and  of 
the  earlier  standards  of  teaching,  to  the  new  issues  which  con- 
vulsed the  Church,  and  should   protect   the  older  standards 


Till  ED   PERIOD.  301 

from  corruption  and  false  interpretations.  3.  The  securing 
for  both  ckisses  of  Confession,  the  subscriptions  of  the  teachers 
of  the  Church,  as  representatives  of  its  faith,  and  4.  The 
solemn  sanction  of  the  norm  of  teaching  by  the  Political 
Estates,  which  would  shield  it  against  violence.* 

Two  of  these  problems  had  now  been  happily  solved  :  The 
Augsburg  Confession  ;  its  Apology  :  the  Schmalcald  Articles 
and  the  Catechisms  had  been  fixed  upon  as  the  standard  of 
teaching  ;  and  the  Bergen  Formula  had  determined  the  new 
questions,  in  accordance  with  that  standard.  Two  problems 
remained.  It  was  first  contemplated  to  settle  them  by  holding 
a  General  Convention,  a  plan,  wisely  abandoned.  The  plan 
adopted  was,  to  submit  the  book  for  signature  to  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  Church  in  the  various  lands.  In  far  the  larger 
part  of  the  Lutheran  States  and  Cities,  the  subscription  was 
promptly  made.  It  was  throughout  voluntary.  A  free  expres- 
sion of  opinion  was  invited.  Force  was  put  upon  no  man. 
l^ot  even  the  enemies  of  the  Formula  pretended  that  such  was 
the  case.  The  Apostates  from  it,  at  a  later  period,  did  not  pre- 
tend that  they  had  acted  under  constraint  in  signing  it.  It 
was  signed  by  three  Electors,  twenty-one  Princes,  twenty-two 
Counts,  twenty-four  Free  Cities,  and  by  eight  thousand  of  the 
teachers  of  the  Church. 

YI.  It  was  impossible,  nevertheless,  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
that  there  should  be  no  dissenting  voices.  Few  and  feeble  as 
they  were  when  contracted  with  the  joyous  response  of  a 
major  part  of  the  Church,  they  were  listened  to  with  respect, 
and  no  effort  was  spared  to  unite  the  whole  Church.  But  as 
oneclass  of  objections  was  often  of  the  pettiest  and  most  pitiful 
nature,  for  the  most  part  the  merest  effusions  of  the  ill  nature 
of  men  who  were  too  little  to  lead,  and  too  vain  to  follow,  and 
as  another  class,  though  of  a  more  dignified  nature,  were 
drawn  from  mere  motives  of  political  jealousy,  or  State  interest, 
the  gentleness  and  patience  failed  of  their  object.  Those  who 
loved  the  Church  best  had  hoped  rather  than  expected,  that 
all  the  Estates  would  accept  the  bond  of  union.  This  holy  hope 
was  not  indeed  consummated,  but  great  beyond  all  expectation 

*  Anton:  Gescb.  d.  Cone,  foruiel.   I.  214. 


302  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION 

were  the  results,  nevertheless.  If  the  Church's  vote  was  not 
absolutely  unanimous,  it  was  that  of  an  immense  majority.  A 
Church  threatened  with  destruction,  from  the  insidious  work- 
ing of  error,  had  risen  out  of  the  chaos  created  by  heresy  which 
pretended  to  be  orthodox.  The  darkness  in  which  no  man 
could  tell  friend  from  foe  had  been  swept  away.  Deliverance 
had  come  from  a  state  of  pitiful  strife  and  alienation,  over 
which  tlu-  enemies  of  God  were  already  exulting  as  hopeless, 
and  which  would  have  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. But  for  the  Formula  of  Concord  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  Protestantism  could  have  been  saved  to  the  world. 
It  staunched  the  wounds  at  which  Lutheranism  was  bleeding 
to  death,  and  crises  were  at  hand  in  history,  in  which  Luther- 
anism was  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the  whole  Reformatory 
interest  in  Europe.  The  Thirty  Years'  War,  the  war  of  mar- 
tyrs, which  saved  our  modern  world,  lay  indeed  in  the  future  of 
another  century,  yet  it  was  fought  and  settled  in  the  Cloister 
of  Bergen.  But  for  the  pen  of  the  peaceful  triumvirates,  the 
sword  of  Gustavus  had  not  been  drawn.  Intestine  treachery 
and  division  in  the  Church  of  the  Reformation  would  have 
done  what  the  arts  and  arras  of  Rome  failed  to  do.  But  the 
miracle  of  restoration  was  wrought.  From  being  the  most  dis- 
tracted Church  on  earth,  the  Lutheran  Church  had  become 
the  most  stable.  The  blossom  put  forth  at  Augsburg,  despite 
the  storm,  the  mildew  and  the  worm,  had  ripened  into  the  full 
round  fruit  of  the  amplest  and  clearest  Confession,  in  which 
the  Christian  Church  has  ever  embodied  her  faith. 

The  Fourth  Division  of  the  History  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord embraces  the  events  whlck  followed  its  publication.  Among 
them  may  be  enumerated,  as  most  important,  the  following: 

I.  A  number  of  Estates,  not  embraced  in  the  iirst  subscrip- 
tion, 1580,  added  their  signatures,  in  158:^.  There  was  now  a 
grand  total  of  eighty-six  Evangelical  States  of  the  Empire 
united  in  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

IL  As  regards  its  reception,  out  of  Germany.,  may  be  noted 
these  facts : 

1.  The  Princes  and  theologians  by  whom  the  Formula  of 
Concord  had  been  given  to  the  world,  had  made  no  effort  to 


FOURTH  PERIOD.  303 

procure  the  subscription  and  cooperation  of  the  Churches  out- 
side of  the  German  Empire.  The  reasons  for  this  course  were 
various.  First,  To  have  invited  the  co-working  of  other  na- 
tionalities, would  have  complicated,  to  the  degree  of  impracti- 
cability, what  was  already  so  tangled.  Second,  The 
aifnculties  which  originated  the  necessity  for  the 
Formula  of  Concord  were  comparatively  little  felt  outside  of 
Germany.  The  whole  doctrinal  Reformation,  outside  of  Ger- 
many, was  in  a  certain  sense  secondary.  Germany  was  the 
battle-ground  of  the  great  struggle,  and  others  waited,  know- 
ing that  the  decision  there  would  be  a  decision  for  all.  Third, 
Political  barriers  existed.  In  some  lands  where  the  Lutheran 
Church  had  strength,  the  rulers  were  Reformed  or  Roman 
Catholic.  One  of  the  Reformed  monarchs  indeed.  King  Henry 
of  ISTavarre,  desired  to  form  an  alliance  with  the  Evanorelical 
States  against  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  the  States,  setting  the 
pure  faith  before  all  political  considerations,  declined  the  alli- 
ance, except  on  the  basis  of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

2.  Denmark  was  the  solitary  exception  to  the  rule  in  regard 
to  foreign  lands,  an  exception  due,  probably,  to  the  fact  that 
the  wife  of  Augustus  of  Saxony  was  the  sister  of  the  Ring, 
Frederick  the  Second.  The  feeling  of  Frederick  11.  was  prob- 
ably a  mingling  of  aversion,  inspired  by  some  of  his  theologians 
who  were  Crypto-Calvinistic  or  Philippistic,  and  of  dread,  lest 
the  Formula  of  Concord  should  introduce  into  his  land  the 
controversies  from  which  it  had  hitherto  been  free.  How 
blind  and  irrational  the  feeling  of  Frederick  w^as,  is  shown  by 
the  fact,  greatly  disputed  but  apparently  well  established,  that 
without  reading  it,  or  submitting  it  to  his  theologians,  he  threw 
into  the  fire  the  superbly  bound  copy  sent  him  by  his  sister,  the 
Electress.  On  July  24th,  1580,  he  sent  forth  an  order  forbid- 
ding the  bringing  of  a  copy  of  the  Book  into  Denmark,  under 
penalty  of  the  confiscation  of  all  the  property  of  the  offender, 
and  of  his  execution.  Ministers  and  teachers,  if  convicted  of 
having  a  copy  in  their  houses,  were  to  be  deposed.  In  spite 
of  this  fierce  opposition,  the  Formula  came  to  be  regarded  in 
Denmark  with  the  highest  reverence,  and  in  fact,  if  not  in 
form,  became  a  Symbol  of  the  Danish  Church. 


304  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

3.  In  IToLSTEix,  it  was  speedily  introduced  and  greatly 
prized,  and,  in  1647,  was  formally  accepted  as  a  Symbol. 

4.  In  Sweden,  John  11.  (1568-1592)  was  on  the  throne.  To 
the  cruel  murder  of  his  insane  brother  Eric,  he  added  the 
crime  of  persistent  efforts  to  force  Romanism  on  his  people. 
There  of  course,  for  the  present,  the  Formula  could  not  hope 
for  a  hearing.  But  in  1593,  the  year  after  his  death,  the  Coun- 
cil of  Upsala  determined  upon  its  subscription,  and  its  author- 
ity as  a  Symbol  was  still  further  fixed  by  later  solemn  acts  of 
official  sanction. 

5.  In  PoMERANiA,LivoxiA  and  Hungary  (1573-1597),  it  was 
accepted  as  a  Symbol. 

III.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  some  of  the  nominally  Lu- 
theran Princes  and  States  either  1,  never  accepted  the  Formula 
as  their  Confession,  or  2,  having  accepted  it,  subsequently  with- 
drew. 

1.  The  city  of  Zweibriicken  which  had  not  received  the  For- 
mula, went  over,  in  1588,  to  the  Reformed  Church.  Anhalt, 
about  the  same  time,  the  Wetterau,  in  1596,  and  Hesse,  in 
1604,  made  the  same  change. 

2.  In  the  Electoral  Palatinate^  Louis  had  been  a  devoted 
friend  of  the  work  of  Concord.  On  his  death,  1583,  John  Casi- 
mir  introduced  the  Reformed  faith.  In  Brandenburg,  in  1614, 
under  John  Sigismund,  an  Electoral  Resolution  was  set  forth, 
full  of  coarse  abuse  of  the  Formula  and  of  its  authors.  The 
Formula,  nevertheless,  continued  to  be  loved  and  reverenced  in 
Brandenburg.  In  part  of  Brunswick,  the  Corpus  Julium  took 
the  place  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  It  embraced  everything  in 
the  Book  of  Concord  except  the  Formula,  and  had  in  addition 
a  work  on  doctrines  by  Chemnitz,  and  another  by  Urban 
Regius.  In  the  part  of  Brunswick  which  had  had  the  Corpus 
Wilhelminum,  the  Book  of  Concord  and  the  Corpus  were  both 
received  as  symbolical.  The  Corpus  had  all  the  matter  of  the 
Book  except  the  Formula. 

IV.  As  might  be  anticipated,  appearing  in  so  controversial 
an  age  and  involving  all  the  greatest  questions  of  the  time,  the 
Formula  of  Concord  was  assailed  by  the  Reformed  and  the 
Roman  Catholics,  and  by    a    few  nominal  Lutlierans.     Most 


FORMULA  — MERITS  AND    VALUE.  30-5 

renowned  among  these  earlier  assaults  were  the  "  Christian  Ad- 
nrionition  "  by  Ursinus,  1581,  the  Anhalt  Opinion,  1581,  the 
Reply  of  the  Bremen  Preachers,  1581,  Irenaeus'  Examen,  1581, 
and  Ambrose  Wolff's  History  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
1580.  To  these  bitter  libels,  for  they  were  little  else,  the  three 
great  divines,  Kirchner,  Selneccer,  and  Chemnitz,  by  order  of 
the  three  Electors,  of  the  Palatinate,  Saxony,  and  Brandenburg, 
replied.  In  1599,  appeared  the  Statfort  Book  (named  from  the 
place  of  its  publication,)  in  which  the  Margrave  of  Baden 
assigned  his  reasons  for  rejecting  the  Formula  of  Concord. 
They  were  so  convincing  to  his  ow^n  mind  that  he  persecuted 
his  Lutheran  subjects  for  not  seeing  the  force  of  them.  The 
Book  was  answered  hj  the  Wiirtemberg  and  Electoral-Saxon 
theologians,  in  1600-1602. 

Several  Roman  Catholic  writers  also  assailed  the  Formula. 
The  most  renowned  of  these  was  Cardinal  Bellarmin  in  his 
"  Judgment  on  the  Book  of  Concord,"  Cologne,  1589.  It  now 
forms  the  Fourth  Part  of  his  work  on  the  Controversies  of  his 
time,  the  master-piece  of  the  Romish  Polemic  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century.  It  was  answered  by  Hoe  of  Hoenegg  (1605)  and 
others. 

In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  merits  and  value  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  for  which  we  have  been  prepared  by  the 
glance  taken  at  its  history,  the  following  facts  may  be  worthy 
of  consideration  : 

I.  The  controversies  which  the  Formula  of  Concord  was 
meant  to  settle,  had  produced  incalculable   mischief  in  the 
Church,  and  absolutely  needed  settlement,  if  the 
C'hurch  were  to  be  saved.  concord,  its 

1.  The  time  was  one  of  mighty  agitations  and  of 
strong  convictions.  Every  question  involving  doctrine  was  re- 
garded with  an  intensity  of  feeling,  which  a  cold  and  skeptical 
age  is  unable  to  understand.  God's  least  word  was  something 
for  which  men  would  spend  their  years  in  battle,  would  take 
joyfully  the  spoiling  of  their  goods,  would  abandon  their  homes 
for^  exile,  and  would  ascend  the  scaffold.  They  resisted  unto 
blood  on  the  division  of  a  hair,  if  they  believed  the  hair  to 
belong  to  the  head  of  Truth. 

20 


306  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

2.  The  age  was  one  of  vast  upheaval,  and  of  rapid  recon- 
struction. The  superstitions  of  centuries  had  heen  overthrown, 
and  the  temple  of  a  pure  Scriptural  faith  was  to  he  reared 
upon  their  ruins.  Every  man  w^as  a  polemic  and  a  'builder, 
eager  to  hear  part  in  the  wonderful  work  of  the  time.  It  was 
an  age  of  feverish  excitement,  and  many  passed  through  the 
delirium  of  weak  mind  overwrought,  and  fancied  their  rav- 
ings, inspirations.  It  was  the  age  of  antitheses,  in  whicli 
extravagances, bj^  a  law  of  reaction,  rose  in  hostile  pairs.  Two 
errors  faced  each  other,  and  in  their  conflict  trampled  down 
the  faith  which  lay  prostrate  between  them.  Extremists 
treated  truth  as  if  it  were  habitable  only  at  one  pole,  and  the 
proof  that  the  one  pole  was  untenable  at  once  involved  to  them 
the  necessity  of  going  to  the  other. 

3.  The  controversies  which  followed  Luther's  death,  arrested 
the  internal  development  of  the  Church,  and  brought  the 
processes  of  its  more  perfect  constitutional  organizing  almost  to  a 
close.  The  great  living  doctrines,  which  made  the  Reformation, 
were  in  danger  of  losing  all  their  practical  power  in  the  absorp- 
tion of  men's  minds  in  controversies.  War,  as  a  necessary 
evil  to  avoid  a  greater,  just  war,  as  the  preliminary  to  a  pure 
peace,  is  to  be  defended ;  but  war,  made  a  trade,  treated  as 
a  good,  pursued  for  its  own  sake,  and  interminable,  is  the  curse 
of  curses,  and  much  of  the  controversy  of  the  second  half  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century  was  making  a  rapid  transition  to  this  type 
of  strife.  The  Church  was  threatened  with  schisms.  Her 
glory  w^as  obscured.  Her  enemies  mocked  at  her.  Her  children- 
were  confounded  and  saddened.  Weak  ones  were  turned  from 
her  communion,  sometimes  to  Zurich,  or  Geneva,  sometimes  to 
Rome.  Crafty  men  crept  in  to  make  the  Lutheran  Church 
the  protector  of  heresy.  There  was  danger  that  the  age  w^hich 
the  Conservative  Reformation  had  glorified,  should  see  that 
grand  work  lost  in  the  endless  dissensions  of  embittered 
factions.  Hence  it  is  that  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  the 
Formula,  on  which  its  necessity  and  value  depend,  goes  so  far 
in  solving  —  what  might  otherwise  seem  mysterious  —  that 
while  the  larger  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  received  it  with 
enthusiasm,  some  did  not  accept  it.     The  reason  is:  that  while 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  307 

the  Confessions  set  forth  the  faith  of  our  Church,  in  her  an- 
tagonism to  the  errors  outside  of  her,  the  Formula,  if  not  ex- 
clusively, yet  in  the  main,  is  occupied  in  stating  the  truth, 
and  defending  it,  over  against  the  errors  which  had  crept  into  her, 
and  corrupted  some  of  her  children.  Bomunism,  with  its  arti- 
fices,  had  misled  some.  Fanaticism,  sectarianism,  and  heresy, 
had  lured  others  ;  and  the  ardor  of  controversy  against  the 
wrong,  had  led  others,  as,  for  example,  the  noble  and  great 
Flaccius,  to  extravagance  and  over-statement,  which  needed 
to  be  corrected.  The  Lutheran  Church  was  assailed  by  open 
war  and  direct  persecution,  by  intrigue,  Jesuitical  device,  and 
conspiracy.  Romanism  was  active  on  the  one  hand,  and  secta- 
rianism on  the  other.  False  brethren,  pseudo-unionists,  en- 
deavored by  tricks  of  false  interpretation  to  harmonize  the 
language  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  of  the  earlier  Con- 
fessions, with  their  errors.  The  mighty  spirit  of  Luther  had 
gone  to  its  rest.  Melanchthon's  gentleness  sometimes  degene- 
rated into  utter  feebleness  of  purpose,  and  alike  to  the  Roman- 
ists and  the  sectarians  he  was  induced  to  yield  vital  points. 

Not  yet  compacted  in  her  organism,  living  only  by  her  faith 
and   centred  in   it,  as  her  sole  bond  of  union,  the  Lutheran 
Church,  in  Germany  especially,  which  was  the  great  battle- 
ground, was  called  to  meet  an  awful  crisis. 

Ko  man  who  knows  the  facts,  will  deny  that  something 
worthy  of  the  responsibility  involved  in  such  great  and  cogent 
issues  had  to  be  done.  About  the  means  there  may  be  dispute, 
about  the  end  there  can  be  none.  The  world  is  very  much 
divided  between  men  who  do  things,  and  men  who  show  that 
they  could  have  been  done  better,  but  the  latter  class,  at  least 
admit  that  they  had  to  be  done. 

IL  The  Church  in  this  time  of  trial  used  the  best  means  for 
the  needed  end.  She  availed  herself  of  the  labors  of  the  best 
men,  who  proposed  and  carried  out  the  best  means  for  the  prep- 
aration of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

1.  First  and  greatest  among  these  men,  was    the  Elector 
Augustus,  of  Saxony,  (1533-1588,)  son  of  Duke  Henry,  the 
Pious.     In  1548  he  married  Anna,  daughter  of  Christian  IIL  * 
of  Denmark,  who  was  universally  beloved  for  her  devoted  adhe- 


308  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

re  lice  to  Lutheranism,  and  for  her  domestic  virtues.  Augustus 
assisted  in  bringing  about  the  religious  peace  of  Augsburg,  in 
1555,  by  which  the  Protestants  (Lutherans)  obtained  important 
rights  in  common  with  the  Roman  Catholics.  The  fact  that 
these  benefits  were  confined  to  the  "  adherents  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,"  was  one  dangerous  source  of  temptation  to 
the  Reformed.  It  led  men  to  pretend  to  adhere  to  that  Con- 
fession, simply  to  secure  the  civil  benefits  connected  with  it. 

The  Elector  was  in  advance  of  his  time  in  the  principles  of 
constitutional  sovereignty.  In  an  arbitrary  age  he  governed 
by  law.  He  consulted  his  parliament  on  all  great  questions, 
and  raised  no  money  by  taxation  without  their  advice.  Ilis 
edicts  were  so  just  that  he  has  been  called  the  Saxon  Justinian. 
His  subjects  regarded  him  with  peculiar  love  and  reverence. 
By  his  skilful  internal  administration,  he  raised  his  country 
far  above  the  rest  of  Germany,  introducing  valuable  reforms 
both  in  jurisprudence  and  finance,  and  giving  a  decided  im- 
pulse to  education,  agriculture,  and  manufactures.  The  Dres- 
den Library  owes  to  him  its  origin,  as  do  also  most  of  its 
galleries  of  arts  and  science. 

Augustus  bore  a  part  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  worthy  of 
him.  To  meet  the  necessary  expenses  connected  with  the  Form- 
ula, the  Elector  himself  paid  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  in 
gold.  His  gifts  and  eftbrts  were  unceasing  till  the  great  end  was 
attained.  Xoble  and  unsuspicious,  he  had  been  slow  to  believe 
in  the  possibility  of  the  treachery  of  the  false  teachers,  whose 
mischievous  devices  he  at  length  reluctantly  came  to  under- 
stand. The  troubles  they  brought  upon  the  Church  whitened 
untimely  the  Elector's  head,  but  so  much  the  more  did  he  toil 
and  pray  till  the  relief  from  the  evil  was  wrought.  AVhife  the 
theologians  were  engaged  in  conferences,  the  Elector  and  his 
noble  wife  were  often  on  their  knees,  fervently  praying  that 
God  would  enlighten  His  servants  with  His  Holy  Spirit.  In 
large  measure,  to  the  piety,  sound  jiidgment,  and  indefatigable 
patience  of  this  great  prince,  the  Church  owes  the  Formula 
of  Concord."^' 

2.  Next  to  the  name  of  Augustus,  is  to  be  placed  that  of 

♦  Hutter  :  Cone.  Cone.  cli.  xi.     Anton  :  i.  147,  148.      KoUner:  533. 


FORMULA    OF   CONCORD.  309 

Jacob  Andrew,  (1528-1590,)  Professor  and  Chancellor  of  the 
University  at  Tubingen,  and  Provost  of  the  Church  of  St. 
George.     He  was  the  pupil,  friend,  and  colleague  of  Brentius. 
"-  lie  was,''  says  one  who  had  no  reason  to  tempt  him  to  ex- 
travagance of  eulogy,    "  a  man  of  excellent  genius,  of  large 
soul,  of  rare  eloquence,  of  finished  skill— a  man  whose  judg- 
ments carried  the  greatest  authority  with  them."*     At  the 
age  of  eighteen  he  was  Dean  at  Stuttgart —and  when,  on  the 
capture  of  that  city  by  the  Spaniards,  the  Protestant  preachers 
were   driven  out,  Andrere   remained,  and  exercised  an  influ- 
ence in  moderati  g  the  victors.     He  resigned,  at  the  age  of 
twenty,  his  earliest  place  as  a  clergyman,  rather  than  accept  the 
Interim,  with  its  concessions  to  Romanism.     His  labors  as  a 
Reformer,  both  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  afterward  as  a 
Conservator  of  the  Reformation,  were  unwearied.     He  was  "  in 
journeyings  oft,"  and  all  his  journeyings  were  directed  to  the 
good  of  the  Church,  and  the  glory   of  God.     The    estimate 
which  Planck  makes  of  Andrese,  is  confessedly  an  unkind  and 
unjust  one,  yet  he  says  :  "  Andreee  belongs  not  merely  to  the 
learned,  but  to  the  liberal-minded  theologians  of  his  era  .  .  .  It 
was  not  in  his  nature  to  hate  any  man  merely  because  that 
man  was  not  orthodox  ...  It  was  not  only  possible  for  him  to 
be  just,  at  least  at  the  beginning,  toward  those  who  were  in 
error,  but  he  felt  a  something  to  which  it  is  not  easy  to  give  a 
name,   which    attracted    him    to   those   that    erred."    '^"  His 
writings,"  says  Hartmann,  "  over    one   hundred   and  fifty  in 
number,  are  among  the    most   interesting    memorials   of  the 
characteristics  of  the  theological  effort  of  the  era.  He  was  a  man 
of  rich  erudition,  and  of  unflagging  diligence.     His  eloquence 
bore  his  hearers  resistlessly  with  it.     As  a  preacher,  he  was 
full  of  fire  and  life.     His  sermons  were  pre-eminently  practical. 
In  negotiations,  he  was  skilful  and  captivating." 

3.  Worthy  of  association  with  the  venerable  names  of  Augus- 
tus and  Andrews,  is  that  of  Chemnitz,  (1522-1586,)  Melanch- 
thon's  greatest  pupil.  At  the  age  of  fourteen,  already  reveal- 
ing "  a  peculiar  genius,"  he  was  sent  to  school  -at  Wittenberg. 

*  Weismann  :   H.  S.  N.  T.  i.  1453.     See   Andre*,   in  Herzog's  R.  E.  i.   310,   by 
Hartmann.     Planck  :   Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Tlxeol.  vi.  372. 


310  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION: 

There  he  received  his  first  deep  impressions  of  Ijuther,  whom 
he  often  heard  in  the  pulpit,  in  the  fullest  glory  of  his  power. 
When,  nine  years  later,  Chemnitz  came  to  Wittenberg  as  a 
University  student,  Luther  was  living,  but  the  young  scholar 
had  not  yet  decided  on  the  theological  studies  with  which  his 
renown  was  to  be  identified.  ^  To  these  Melanchthon  drew  him. 
The  learning  of  Chemnitz  was  something  colossal,  but  it  had 
no  tinge  of  pedantry.  His  judgment  was  of  the  highest  order. 
His  modesty  and  simplicity,  his  clearness  of  thought,  and  his 
luminous  style,  his  firmness  in  principle,  and  his  gentleness  in 
tone,  the  richness  of  his  learning  and  the  vigor  of  his  thinking, 
have  revealed  themselves  in  such  measure  in  his  Loci,  his 
Books  on  the  Two  N'atures  of  our  Lord,  and  on  the  True  Pres- 
ence, in  his  Examen  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  his  Defence  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  his  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  as 
to  render  each  a  classic  in  its  kind,  and  to  mark  their  author 
as  the  greatest  theologian  of  his  time  —  one  of  the  greatest  theo- 
logians of  all  time.  • 

4.  The  third  man  in  the  great  theological  "  triumvirate," 
as  its  enemies  were  pleased  to  call  it,  was  [N'icholas  Selneccer 
(1530-1592).  He  too  was  one  of  Melanchthon's  pupils  (1549). 
In  1557  he  became  Court  preacher  at  Dresden.  He  was  a 
great  favorite  with  the  Elector  Augustus.  His  simple,  earnest 
Lutheranism  led  him  to  defend  Hoftman  against  the  persecu- 
tions of  the  Melanchthonian-Calvinistic  party.  So  little  did 
Augustus  at  that  time  understand  the  real  character  of  the 
furtive  error  against  which,  in  after  time,  he  was  to  direct  the 
most  terrible  blows,  that  Selneccer  was  allowed  to  resign  his 
place,  (1561).  The  exile  sought  refuge  in  Jena.  There  the 
Flaccian  troubles  met  him,  and  led  to  his  deposition,  but 
Augustus  recalled  him  (1568)  to  a  position  as  Professor  at  Leip- 
zig, in  which  he  labored  on,  in  stillness,  not  unobservant,  how- 
ever, of  the  mischiefs  connected  with  the  Crypto-Calvinistic 
movements  in  Saxony.  Finally  the  Elector,  wit!,  his  aid,  had 
his  eyes  opened  to  these  evils,  and  the  movemen^s  l^egan  which 
terminated  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  In  all  these  move- 
ments, Selneccer  was  very  active  and  useful.  To  him  we  owe 
the  Latin  translation  of  the  Formula.     Like  all  who  bore  part 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  Sll 

in  that  noble  work,  he  was  very  fiercely  assailed.  When  the 
Reformed  party  came  into  power,  at  the  death  of  Augustus, 
Selneccer  was  deposed,  and  not  even  allowed  to  remain  in 
Leipzig  as  a  private  citizen.  His  family  was  harassed  by 
Crell,  and  Selneccer  himself  was  reduced  to  poverty.  But  such 
a  man  could  not  long  be  crushed.  He  was  called  to  the  super- 
intendency  in  Hildesheim.  Lying  upon  the  bed  of  sickness,  in 
1592,  he  was  summoned  to  Leipzig,  as  its  Superintendent. 
Crell  had  been  overthrown.  Selneccer  was  borne  back,  dying 
but  vindicated,  and  breathed  his  last,  in  Leipzig,  May  24, 1592. 
The  Church  will  sing  his  precious  hymns,  some  of  them  set  to 
his  own  melodies,  to  the  end  of  time,  and  his  memory  will  be 
treasured  as  that  of  one  of  her  great  defenders  in  the  time  of 
darkness."^ 

5.  ]N'or  were  the  three  men  who  were  associated  with 
Andrese,  Chemnitz,  and  Selneccer,  unworthy  to  bear  part  with 
these  three  chiefs  in  their  great  work.  Chytraeus  (1530-1600  , 
of  "Wiirtemberg,  was  one  of  Melanchthon's  favorite  pupils. 
Professor  at  Rostock,  and  Superintendent,  renowned  for  his 
solid  judgment,  his  large  culture,  his  moderation,  his  deep 
insight  into  the  needs  of  his  time,  his  desire  for  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  his  fame  was  great  in  his  own  communion,  but 
was  not  confined  to  it.  His  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion is  classic  in  its  kind.  He  was  a  "  great  and  renowned 
teacher,  who  had  few  equals,  "f  Andrew  Musculus  (1514- 
1581)  was  of  Saxony.  In  1538,  he  was  among  the  devoted 
young  men  of  the  Reformation  who  surrounded  Luther. 
Xone  were  more  devoted  to  the  great  leader  than  Musculus. 
He  says  of  Luther  :  "  Since  the  Apostles'  time,  no  greater  man 
has  lived  upon  earth.  God  has  poured  out  all  His  gifts  on 
this  one  man.  Between  the  old  teachers  (even  Hilary  and 
Augustine)  and  Luther,  there  is  as  wide  a  difference  as  between 
the  shining  of  the  moon  and  the  light  of  the  sun."  He  was 
an  earnest  defender  of  the  faith,  a  fearless  and  powerful 
preacher,  unsparing  of  wrong,  and  active  in  all  the  works  of 
love.  Christopher  Corner  (1518-1594)  was  of  Franconia. 
He  was  a  Doctor  and  Professor  of  theology,  at  Frankfort  on 

*  Herzog's  R.  :    xiv,  220.  (Ilollenberg).  f  Weismanu :   H.  E.  i.  1457. 


312  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  Qtler,  and  General  Superintendent  of  the  Electorate  of 
Brandenburg,- and  author  of  a  number  of  learned  works.  He 
was  styled  the  "  Eye  of  the  University."* 

6.  With  these  chief  laborers  were  associated,  at  various 
stages,  a  number  of  others.  In  some  shape,  the  whole  learning 
and  judgment  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  that  era  had  an 
opportunity  of  making  itself  felt  in  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

7.  The  2?lan  on  which  the  w^ork  was  carried  through,  was  of 
the  best  kind.  The  plan  involved  careful  preparation  of  the 
proper  documents  by  the  ablest  hands,  repeated  revision,  com- 
parison of  views,  both  in  writing  and  by  colloquy,  the  free  ex- 
pression of  opinion  by  the  various  parts  of  the  Church,  the 
concurrence  of  the  laity  and  ministry,  and  the  holding  of  a 
large  number  of  conventions.  So  carefully  and  slowly  was  the 
work  carried  on,  that  in  the  ten  years  between  its  opening  and 
its  close,  the  gifts  and  contrasts  of  the  great  men  engaged  in  it 
were  brought  to  the  most  perfect  exercise.  ^N'ever  was  a  work 
of  this  kind  so  thoroughly  done.  The  objections  made  to  the 
plan  and  its  working  are  of  the  weakest  kind.  A  General 
Synod  of  all  the  Lutheran  Churches  was  impossible,  and  if  it 
could  have  been  convened,  could  not  have  sat  long  enough  for 
the  needed  discussions.  The  General  Consent,  w^hich  is  the 
only  thing  of  value  which  a  General  Synod  could  have  given, 
was  reached  in  a  far  better  way.  The  Formula,  though  pre- 
pared by  a  committee  of  great  divines,  was  the  act  and  deed 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  its  major  part.  The  Formula  of 
Concord  brought  peace  and  blessing  wherever  it  was  honestly 
received.  The  evil  that  remained  uncorrected  by  it,  remained 
because  of  the  factious  opposition  to  it.  All  good  in  this  evil 
world  is  but  proximate.  Even  the  divine  blessing  which 
descends  direct  upon  the  world  from  the  hand  of  God,  is  marred 
by  the  passions  of  bad  men,  and  the  infirmities  of  the  good. 
The  divine  rule  of  faith  does  not  force  upon  the  unwilling  a 
perfect  faith,  nor  should  we  expect  a  Confession  of  faith,  how- 
ever pure,  to  compel  the  unwilling  to  a  consistent  confession. 

IV.  The  DOCTRINAL  RESULT  readied  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord is  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  the  divine  Word. 

*  Jiicher:  Gelelirten  Lexic.  Vol.  i:  col.  210G. 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  313 

The  doctrines  which  the  Formula  was  meant  to  settle,  were 
settled  aright.  As  preliminary  to  the  whole  discussion  proper, 
the  Formula 

1.  Lays  down,  more  sharply  and  clearly  than  had  yet  heen 
done,  the  principle,  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  only  and  perfect 
ndc  of  faith.  The  Rale  sets  forth  the  credenda  —  the  things  that 
are  to  be  believed. 

2.  It  defines  the  proper  functions  of  the  pure  Creed  as  the 
Church's  testimony  and  Confession  of  the  truth  derived  from 
the  rule.  The  Greed  sets  forth  the  credita  —  the  things  that 
are  believed. 

In  consonance  with  this  Rule,  and  by  necessity  in  consonance 
w^ith  the  pure  Creeds  of  the  past,  the  Formula  determines  over 
against  the  errors  of  the  time : 

?'.  In  regard  to  original  sin^  that  it  is  not  the  essence,  or  sub- 
stance, or  nature  of  man,  (Flaccius,)  but  a  corruption  of  that 
nature. 

a.  Of  free  ivill,  that  there  are  not  three  efficient  causes  of  con- 
version, of  which  one  is  man's  will,  (Philippistic,)  but  two  only, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  as  His  instrument,  the  Word. 

Hi.  Of  justification^  that  Christ  is  our  righteousness,  not 
merely  according  to  his  divine  nature,  (Andrew  Osiander,)  nor 
merely  according  to  his  human  nature,  (Stancar,)  but  accord- 
ing to  both  natures  :  and  that  justification  is  not  an  infused 
righteousness,  (Osiander,)  but  a  pardon  of  our  sins — is  not 
physical,  but  forensic. 

IV,  Of  good  works.  Here  are  rejected  the  phrases:  that  good 
works  are  necessary  to  salvation,  (Major,)  and  that  good  works 
are  injurious  to  salvation,  (Arasdorf,)  and  the  truth  is  taught 
First,  that  good  works  most  surely  follow  true  faith,  as  the 
good  fruit  of  a  good  tree  ;  that  it  is  the  necessary  duty  of  regen- 
erate men  to  do  good  works,  and  that  he  who  sins  knowingly 
loses  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  that,  nevertheless,  men  are  neither 
justified  nor  saved  by  their  good  works,  but  by  "grace  through 
faith."  In  a  w^ord,  justilication  and  its  consequent  salvation 
are  necessary  to  good  works,  not  the  converse.  They  precede, 
the  good  works  follow.  Second  :  "  We  reject  and  condemn  the 
naked  phrase,  'that  good  works  are  injurious  to  salvation,' 


314  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

as  scandalous  and  destructive  of  Christian  discipline.  That 
the  works  of  a  man  who  trusts  in  them  are  pernicious,  is  not  the 
fault  of  the  works  themselves,  but  of  his  own  vain  trust,  which, 
contrary  to  the  express  Word  of  God,  he  puts  in  them.  Good 
works  in  believers  are  the  indications  of  eternal  salvation.  It  is 
God's  will  and  express  command  that  believers  should  do  good 
works.  These  the  Holy  Spirit  works  in  them.  These  works 
for  Christ's  sake  are  pleasing  to  God,  and  to  them  He  hath 
promised  a  glorious  reward  in  the  life  that  now  is,  and  in 
that  which  is  to  come.  In  these  last  times  it  is  no  less  neces- 
sary that  men  should  be  exhorted  to  holy  living,  should  be  re- 
minded how  necessary  it  is  that  they  should  exercise  them- 
selves in  good  works  to  show  forth  their  faith  and  gratitade 
toward  God,  than  it  is  necessary  to  beware  lest  they  mingle 
good  w^orks  in  the  matter  of  justification.  For  by  an  Epicu- 
rean persuasion  about  faith,  no  less  than  by  a  Papistical  and 
Pharisaic  trust  in  their  own  works  and  merits,  can  men  come 
under  condemnation."* 

V.  Of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  When  the  word  Gospel  is 
taken  in  its  general  and  widest  sense,  as  embracing  the  entire 
teaching  of  Christ  and  of  His  Apostles,  it  may  be  rightly  said 
that  it  is  a  preaching  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins.  But 
when  the  word  Gospel  is  used  in  its  specific  and  proiper  sense, 
so  that  Moses  as  the  teacher  of  the  Law,  and  Christ  the  teacher 
of  the  Gospel  are  contrasted,  the  Gospel  is  not  a  preaching  of 
penitence,  and  of  reproof  of  sins,  but  none  other  than  a  most 
joyful  message,  full  of  consolation,  a  precious  setting  forth 
of  the  grace  and  favor  of  God  obtained  through  the  merits  of 
Christ. 

vi.  Of  the  tldrd  use  of  the  Lair.  The  Law  of  God  has  not  only 
&  first  use,  to-wit,  to  preserve  external  discipline,  and  a  second 
use,  to  lead  men  to  the  knowledge  of  their  sins,  but  has  also  a 
third  use,  to  wit,  that  it  be  diligently  taught  unto  regenerate 
men,  to  all  of  whom  much  of  the  flesh  still  clings,  that  they 
may  have  a  sure  rule  by  which  their  entire  life  is  to  be  shaped 
and  governed. 

vii.   Of  the  Lord's   Suj^per.    This   was   by    pre-eminence    the 

*  Epitome  588-591.     Solid.  Declarat :  699-708. 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  315 

question  which  led  to  the  preparation  of  the  Formula,  and  it 
is  answered  with  peculiar  di  tinctness  and  fulness.  The  state- 
ments in  which  it  eml)races  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  are  these : 

The  true  hody  and  true  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are 
truly  and  substantially  *  present  in  the  Holy  Supper,  and  are 
truly  imparted  with  the  bread  and  wine  : 

"  They  are  truly  received  orally  with  the  bread  and  wine, 
but  not  in  the  manner  imagined  by  the  men  of  Capernaum, 
(John  vi.  52,)  but  in  a  supernatural  and  heavenly  manner,  by 
reason  of  the  Sacramental  union,  a  manner  which  human  sense 
and  reason  cannot  understand.  We  use  the  word  '  Spiritual  * 
in  order  to  exclude  and  reject  that  gross,  fleshly  manner  of 
presence  which  the  Sacramentarians  feign  that  our  Churches 
hold.  In  this  sense  of  the  word  spiritual,  we  also  say  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  Holy  Supper,  are  spiritually 
received.  .  .  For  though  that  participation  be  oral,  the  manner 
of  it  is  spiritual :" 

They  are  received  by  all  those  who  use  the  Sacrament :  by 
the  worthy  and  believing,  to  consolation  and  life  ;  by  the  unbe- 
lieving, to  judgment. 

Hence  the  Formula  rejects  and  condemns  : 

The  Popish  Transubstantiation  ;  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  ; 
the  Communion  in  one  kind  ;  the  adoration  of  the  external 
elements  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  Supper : 

The  errors  of  the  Zwinglians  and  Calvinists,  such  as  these: 
that  the  words  of  the  Testament  are  not  to  be  taken  as  they 
sound ;  that  only  bread  and  wine  are  orally  received  ;  that  the 
body  of  Christ  is  received  merely  spiritually,  meaning  by  this 
merely  by  our  faith ;  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  only  tokens 
by  which  Christians  acknowledge  each  other  ;  or  that  they  are 
figures,  types,  and  similitudes  of  an  absent  body  ;  that  in  the 
Supper,  only  the  virtue,  operation,  and  merit  of  the  absent  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  dispensed  ;  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
in  such  sense  shut  up  in  heaven,  that  it  can  in  no  manner 
whatever  be  on  earth  when  the  Holy  Supper  is  observed  : 

''All   language  of  a   gross,   carnal,   Capernaitish    kind,  in 
regard  to  the  supernatural  and  heavenly  mystery  : 

*Germau:   wesentlich.      Latin:   substantialiter. 


316  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

"■  That  Capernaitish  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ,  as  if  it 
were  rent  with  the  teeth  and  concocted  as  other  food,  which 
the  Sacramentarians,  against  the  witness  of  their  consciences, 
after  so  many  protestations  on  our  part,  maliciously  feign, 
that  they  may  bring  our  doctrine  into  odium."  * 

viii   The  Person  of  Christ     The  handling  of  this  great  theme 
connects  itself  closely  with  the  Lord's  Supper.     The  doctrine 
of  the  person  of  Christ  presented  in  the  Formula  rests  upon 
the  sublimest  series  of  inductions  in  the  history  of  Christian 
doctrine.     In  all  Confessional  history  there  is  nothing  to  be 
compared  with  it  in  the  combination  of  exact  exegesis,  of  dog- 
matic skill,  and  of  fidelity  to  historical  development.     Fifteen 
centuries  of  Christian  thought  culminate  in  it.     The  doctrine 
of  the  "  Communicatio  Idiomatum"  is  indeed  but  the  repetition 
wdiich  Christian  science  in  its  last  maturity  presents,  of  the 
truth   that    "  the    Word   was    made   flesh."      The    Apostle's 
Creed  already  has  it,  when  it  says  that  God's  ^'onlj/  Son,  our 
Lord,  was  conceived,  born,  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead,  buried, 
descended  into  hell,  ascended  to  the  heavens,  and  sittetli  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father  Almighty."    The  "  idiomata"  are  in- 
separable  from    the    natura,    the   attributes    are    inseparable 
from  the  nature,  and  if  there  be  a  "  communicatio"  of  natures, 
there  must  be  a  "  communicatio  "  of  these  attributes  ;  that  is, 
the  nature  personally  assumed  must,  in  that  assumption,  be  par- 
ticipant of  the  attributes  of  that  nature  to  whose  person  it  is 
assumed.      If   an  Eternal   Being  was    actually  conceived  and 
horn,  if  the    impassible  actually  suffered,  if  the  infinite  was 
actually  fastened  to  the  cross,  if  the  immortal  was  dead,  if  He 
whom   heaven,  and    the   heaven  of  heavens,  cannot  contain, 
was  hidden  in  a  grave,  —  if  all  this  be  not  a  riddle,  but  a 
clear   direct  statement  of  doctrine  —  to  accept   the  Apostles' 
Creed  is  to  accept  the  presupposition  which  necessitates  the 
reception   of  the  doctrine  of  the  Communicatio  Idiomatum. 
If    the   Apostles'    Creed   does    not    mean    that   Jesus    Christ 
is   one  person  in  whom   there   is   an    inseparable   connection 
of  the  natures,  so  that  the  one  person  really  does  all  that  is 
done,  whether  through  one  nature  or  through  both,  and  the 

*  Epitome,  597-G04.   Solid.  Declaratio.  724-7G0. 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  317 

one  person  really  suffers  all  that  is  suffered,  though  it  can  suffer 
only  through  the  sole  nature  which  is  passihle  — if  it  means  that 
God's  only  Son  did  not  die,  hut  that  another  and  human 
person  died  ;  if  it  means  that  lie  who  was  horn,  and  suffered, 
and  died,  does  not  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  is  not  the 
judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead,  but  that  only  another  and 
divine  person  so  sits  and  shall  so  judge;  if,  in  a  word,  the 
Apostles'  Creed  means  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  God's  only 
Son,  but  that  one  of  His  natures  was  God's  Son,  and  the  other 
nature  was  not  God's  Son,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  in  fact 
one  person  in  two  natures,  but  two  persons,  then  does  the 
Apostles'  Creed  persistently  say  what  it  does  not  mean,  and  the 
faith  Catholic  is  a  chaos  of  contradictions.  The  Mcene  Creed 
asserts  the  same  great  doctrine  at  an  advanced  point  of  scien- 
tific ripeness.  The  only  begotten,  the  Eternal  Son,  Maker  of 
all  things,  descends  from  heaven,  is  made  man,  is  crucified 
(though  infinite),  sutlers,  (though  impassible).  He  is  one  person, 
to  whom  is  referred  all  the  glory  that  is  divine,  and  all  the  shame 
and  pain  that  are  human.  The  Athanasian  Creed  witnesses 
still  further :  "  Though  he  be  God  and  man.  He  is  not  two,  but 
one  Christ  —  one,  not  by  the  conversion  of  Divinity  into  flesh, 
but  by  the  assumption  of  humanity  to  God  ;  one  altogether, 
not  by  confusion  of  substance,  but  by  unity  of  person.  For 
as  the  rational  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and  man  is 
one  Christ,  who  "  (God  and  man,  one  Christ,)  "  suffered  for  our 
salvation,  descended  into  hell,  rose  the  third  day."  The  Augs- 
burg Confession  takes  up  this  thread  of  witness  :  "God  the  Son 
became  man,  so  that  there  be  two  natures,  the  divine  and 
human,  in  unity  of  person  inseparable/  conjoined,  one  Christ, 
truly  God  and  truly  man,  who  was  born,  truly  suftered,  was 
crucified,  dead  and  buried." 

The  Scripture  faith  represented  in  these  witnesses,  the 
Formula  sets  forth  at  large  in  these  propositions  : 

1.  The  divine  and  the  human  nature  are  personally  united 
in  Christ.  These  natures  are  not  commingled  into  one  sub- 
stance, nor  is  one  changed  into  the  other,  but  each  nature 
retains  its  essential  properties,  which  can  never  become  (-he 
properties  of  the  other  nature. 


318  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

2.  The  properties  of  the  divine  nature  are,  to  be  essentially^ 
naturally^  and  of  itself  omnipotent,  eternal,  infinite,  every- 
where present.  These  neither  are,  nor  can  he,  the  attributes  of 
the  human  nature.  The  attributes  of  the  human  nature 
neither  are,  nor  can  be,  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature. 

3.  Those  things  which  are  proper  to  the  one  nature  only,  are 
attributed  to  the  other  nature  not  as  separate,  but  to  the  whole 
person.  The  divine  nature  does  not  suffer,  but  that  person  who 
is  God,  suffers  in  His  humanity.  All  works  and  all  sufferings  are 
attributed  not  to  the  nature,  but  to  the  person.  Each  nature 
acts,  with  the  communion  of  the  other,  what  is  proper  to  it. 

4.  The  human  nature  in  Christ,  because  it  is  personally 
united  with  the  divine  nature,  beside  and  above  its  natural, 
essential,  and  permanent  human  properties,  has  received  peculiar, 
supernatural,  unsearchable,  unspeakable  prerogatives  of  maj- 
esty, glory,  and  power. 

5.  This  impartation  is  not  made  by  any  essential  or  natural 
outpouring  of  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  upon  the 
human  nature,  as  if  the  humanity  of  Christ  could  have  them 
per  sc  and  separated  from  the  divine  essence,  or  as  if  through 
that  communication  the  human  nature  of  Christ  had  laid 
aside  its  natural  and  essential  properties,  and  was  either  con- 
verted into  the  divine  nature,  or  was  made  equal  in  itself,  or 
per  se^  to  the  divine  nature  by  these  communicated  attri- 
butes, or  that  the  natural  and  essential  properties  of  each  are 
the  same,  or  at  least  equal. 

6.  Inasmuch  as  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwells  in 
Christ,  not  as  in  holy  men  and  angels,  but  bodily,  that  is,  as  in 
its  own  Jumper  hody^  that  Godhead,  with  all  its  majesty,  virtue, 
glory,  and  operation,  where  and  as  Christ  will,  shines  forth  in 
that  human  nature;  and  in  it,  with  it,  and  through  it,  reveals 
and  exercises  its  divine  virtue,  majesty,  and  efficacy. 

7.  Thus  there  is  and  abides  in  Christ  one  only  divine  omnipo- 
tence, virtue,  majesty,  and  glory,  ichicJi  is  proper  to  the  divine 
nature  alone;  but  this  same,  which  is  one  only,  shines  forth  and 
fully,  yet  voluntarily,  exerts  its  power  in,  and  with,  and  through 
the  assumed  humanity  in  Christ.* 

*  Formul.  Concor.  Epit.  et  Sol.  Declarat.  art.  viii. 


FORMULA    OF   CONCORD.  319 

8.  To  make  more  clear  the  train  of  reasoning  wliicli  results 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Communion  of  properties,  certain  logi- 
cal presuppositions,  and  certain  definitions  should  be  held  in 
mind.  In  the  incarnation  it  is  not  two  persons,  to  wit,  a 
divine  person  and  a  human  person,  which  assume  each  other, 
as  if  there  were  two  co-ordinates,  w^hich  equally  took  each 
other ;  nor  does  one  person,  to  wit,  the  divine,  take  another 
person,  to  wit,  a  human  person,  so  that  there  are  two  persons 
in  the  union,  the  divine  person  assuming,  and  the  human  per- 
son assumed  :  but  one  person,  having  the  divine  nature,  assumes 
a  human  nature,  so  that  there  results  a  person  in  which  two 
natures  are  constituent, but  indiiiercnt  ways  —  the  divine  nature 
absolutely  and  independently  personal,  and  the  human  nature 
secondarily  and  dependently  personal  ;  the  divine  nature  still 
has,  as  it  ever  had,  its  own  intrinsic  personality ;  the  human 
nature  is  assumed  to  the  divine  nature,  and  neither  had,  nor 
has  any  other  personality  than  the  one  divine  personality, 
which  it  has  in  virtue  of  the  union.  The  human  nature  of 
Christ  does  not  subsist  per  se,  as  does  the  humanity  of  every 
other  one  .of  our  race,  but  subsists  in  the  person  of  the  Son 
of  God.  Hence,  though  the  natures  be  distinct,  the  person  is  in- 
separable. This  complex  divine-human  person  did  not  exist 
before  the  union,  and  cannot  exist  except  in  and  by  the  union  ; 
and  the  second  nature  in  the  complex  person  has  not  ex- 
isted as  a  nature  before  or  separate  from  this  union,  and  never 
had,  nor  has,  nor  can  have,  personality^  apart  from  that  union. 
The  Communicatio  idiomatum  is  therefore  no  giving  away, 
so  that  the  giver  ceases  to  have,  and  the  receiver  retains  for 
itself  apart  henceforth  from  the  giver,  but  is  the  fellowship  of 
attributes,  which  the  two  natures  possess  in  the  one  person, 
the  divine  nature  having  these  attributes  intrinsically,  and  the 
human  nature  having  them  in  and  because  of  its  personal  iden- 
tification with  the  divine  nature.  In  this  relation  the  word 
"  communicate  "  employed  actively,  means  to  "  confer  a  joint 
possession,"  that  is,  the  divine  nature  confers  on  the  human  a 
joint  possession  of  attributes  in  the  person.  The  word  "  com- 
municate," used  as  a  neuter  verb,  means  to  "  have  something 
in  common  with  another ;"  the  human  nature  has  the  attri- 


320  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

butes  in  common  with  the  divine  nature,  but  derivatively  only 
in  and  through  its  personal  union  with  the  divine.  The 
"  Communication,  or  Communion  of  properties  "  is  therefore 
the  participation  of  these  properties  by  the  two  natures  in 
common  in  the  one  person,  the  divine  nature  having  the  attri- 
butes intrinsically,  the  human  nature  having  them  through 
the  divine  and  dependently.  Though  the  Logos  unincarnate 
was  a  proper  person  before  he  took  a  human  nature,  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Logos  incarnate  involves  the  two  natures.  That 
person  which  is  not  both  human  and  divine  is  not  Christ's 
person,  and  that  act  or  presence  which  is  not  both  human  and 
divine  is  not  Christ's  act,  nor  Christ's  presence. 

The  Errors  rejected  by  the  Formula  are,  on  the  one  hand, 
all  that  involve  a  confusion  or  transmutation  of  the  natures; 
the  presence  of  Christ's  human  nature  in  the  same  way  as 
deity,  as  an  infinite  essence,  or  by  its  essential  properties ;  all 
equalizing  of  its  essential  properties  with  those  of  God,  and  all 
ideas  of  its  local  extension  in  all  places.  The  Errors,  on  the 
other  hand,  are,  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  alone  in 
the  redemptory  suffering  and  work,  with  no  fellowship  with  it 
on  the  part  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  that  the  presence  of  Christ  with 
us  on  earth  is  only  according  to  His  divinity,  and  that  his 
human  nature  has  no  part  whatever  in  it  ;  that  the  assumed 
human  nature  in  Christ  has,  in  very  deed  and  reality,  no  com- 
munication nor  fellowship  with,  or  participation  in  the  divine 
virtue,  wisdom,  power,  majesty  and  glory,  but  that  it  has 
fellowship  with  the  divinity  in  bare  title  and  name. 

IX.  Of  the  Descent  of  Christ  into  Hell.  The  treatment 
of  this  difficult  point  is  a  model  of  comprehensiveness,  brevity, 
simplicity,  and  modesty.  The  doctrine  may  be  arranged  as  a 
reply  to  these  questions  : 

1.  Who  descended  ?  Christy  Son  of  God,  our  Lord,  therefore 
divine  ;  who  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried,  therefore  human  ; 
consequently,  not  the  body  alone,  nor  the  soul  alone,  nor  the 
divinity  alone,  but  Christ,  the  whole  person,  God  and  man. 
This  is  the  precise  affirmation  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  :  "  God's 
only  Son,  our  Lord,  who  was  conceived  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
born,  suifered,  died,  descended  into  hell." 


for'mula  of  concord.  321 

2.  When?  Kot  before  his  death,  (Calvin  and  Ursinus,)  nor 
at  his  burial,  as  identical  with  it,  (Oecolampadius,  Beza,) 
but  after  his  burial. 

So  the  order  of  the  Apostles'  Creed:  ''Dead,  buried,  lie  de- 
scended into  hell." 

3.  Whither?  Not  into  a  metai^horical  hell,  of  pains  of  soul, 
or  of  pains  like  those  of  the  damned,  (Calvin,  Ursinus,)  not 
into  the  grave,  (Oecolampadius,  Beza,)  nor  the  limbus  pa- 
trum,  a  subterranean  place  of  souls,  (Bellarmin,  and  the  Roman- 
ists generally,  with  some  of  the  Fathers,)  but  into  hell. 

4.  Why  ?  To  give  to  our  Lord  a  glorious  victory  and  tri- 
umph, to  overcome  Satan,  and  to  overthrow  the  power  of  hell 
for  all  believers. 

5.  How?  How  it  was  done  we  may  not  curiously  search, 
but  reserve  the  knowledge  of  it  for  another  world,  when  this 
and  other  mysteries  shall  be  uncovered,  which  in  this  life  sur- 
pass the  power  of  our  blind  reason,  and  are  to  be  received  in 
simple  faith. 

1^0  Antitheses  are  added  to  this  Article. 

X.  Of  Ecclesiastical  Ceremonies;  THE  ADiAPHORiE.  Usages, 
which  are  neither  commanded  nor  forbidden  in  God's  word, 
are  in  themselves  no  part  of  divine  worship  j)roper ;  in  them 
the  Church  may  make  such  changes  as  are  needed,  due  regard 
being  had  to  prudence  and  forbearance ;  but  such  changes 
may  not  be  made  to  avoid  persecution,  nor  so  as  to  impair  the 
clearness  of  the  Church's  testimony  against  the  Papal  religion. 
Xo  Church  should  condemn  another  because  of  unlikeness  of 
ceremonies,  if  they  agree  in  doctrine  and  in  all  its  parts,  and  in 
the  legitimate  use  of  the  sacraments. 

XI.  Of  Predestination.  "  For  this  article,"  says  KoUner, 
"  the  Lutheran  Church  owes  an  eternal  debt  of  2:ratitude  to 
the  authors  of  the  Formula."  The  doctrine,  it  is  true,  had 
not  been  the  subject  of  controversy  within  the  Lutheran 
Church  itself,  but  it  was  so  vitally  connected  with  the  whole 
range  of  theological  truth,  that  it  was  wise  to  set  it  forth  in  its 
Scriptural  fulness. 

The  doctrine  may  be  summed  up  in  these  theses : 

1.  "  The  foreknowledge  or  prevision  of  God,  is  that  whereby 

21 


322  COXSERVAriVE   REFOliMATION. 

he  foresees  and  foreknows  all  things  before  they  come  to  pass, 
and  extendeth  to  all  creatures,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil."* 

2.  "  Predestination  or  election  is  the  purpose  of  the  divine 
will,  and  the  eternal  decree,  whereby  God  out  of  pure  mercy 
hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  eternal  life,  and  hath  determined  to 
save  all  those  who  truly  believe  in  Christ,  and  endure  in  that 
faith  unto  the  end." 

3.  "  The  whole  doctrine  concerning  the  purpose,  counsel,  will 
and  ordination  of  God  (all  things,  to  wit,  which  pertain  to  our 
redemption,  calling,  justification,  and  salvation),  is  to  be  em- 
braced together  in  the  mind  ...  to  wit,  that  God  in  his 
counsel  and  purpose  hath  decreed  these  things  following  : 

"  That  the  human  race  should  be  truly  redeemed,  and  should 
be  reconciled  unto  God  through  Christ,  who,  by  his  innocence 
and  most  perfect  obedience,  by  his  passion  and  most  bitter 
death,  hath  merited  for  us  that  righteousness  which  avails 
before  God,  and  life  everlasting: 

"  That  the  merits  of  Christ  and  his  blessings  should,  through 
the  Word  and  Sacraments,  be  brought,  offered,  and  apportioned 
unto  us : 

"  He  hath  decreed  also,  that  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  through 
the  Word  announced,  heard,  and  remembered,  he  will  be  effi- 
cacious in  us,  to  bend  our  hearts  to  true  repentance,  and  to 
preserve  us  in  true  faith  : 

"  It  is  His  eternal  purpose,  that  all  who  truly  repent,  and  em- 
brace Christ  in  true  faith,  shall  be  justified,  received  into  favor, 
and  adopted  as  sons  and  heirs  of  eternal  life : 

''  And  they  that  are  justified  by  faith  he  will  sanctify  in  true 
love,  as  the  Apostle  testifies,  (P^phes.  i.  4  :)  'According  as  he  hath 
chosen  us  in  llim,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we 
should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in  love:' 

"  God  hath  also  determined  in  His  eternal  counsel,  that  in 
their  manifold  and  various  weaknesses  he  will  defend  them 
that  are  justified,  against  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil, 
will  lead  and  direct  them  in  their  way,  and  if  they  should  fall, 
will  uphold  them  with  His  hand,  that  under  the  cross  and  in 
temptation  they  may  receive  strong  consolation,  and  may  be 
preserved  unto  life. 

*  Formula  Concordiae,  728. 


FORMVLA    OF  CONCORD.  323 

*'  It  is  His  eternal  decree  that  lie  will  carry  forward  and 
strengthen,  and  preserve  unto  tlie  end  that  good  work  which 
lie  hath  hegun  in  them,  if  only  they  steadfastly  lean  upon  His 
Word  as  their  staff,  heseech  his  aid  with  ardent  prayers,  con- 
tinue in  God's  grace,  and  well  and  faithfully  employ  the  gifts 
they  have  received  of  llini : 

'' God  hath  also  decreed  that  those  whom  He  hath  chosen, 
called  and  justified,  He  will,  in  another  and  eternal  life,  save 
and  endow  with  glory  everlasting."'^ 

4.  "  Many  receive  the  Word  of  God  in  the  beginning  with 
great  joy,  but  afterward  fall  away.  The  cause  thereof  is  not 
that  God  is  not  willing  to  give  Ills  grace  to  enable  them  to  be 
steadfast  in  whom  He  hath  begun  that  good  work,  for  this  is  in 
conflict  with  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  (Phil.  i.  6  ;)  but  the  true 
reason  of  their  falling  away,  is  that  they  again  turn  themselves 
away  from  God's  holy  command  wilfully,  and  that  they  grieve 
and  provoke  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  again  entangle  them- 
selves in  the  pollutions  of  this  world,  and  garnish  again  the 
guest-chamber  of  their  heart  for  Satan. "f 

5.  "  God  hath  from  eternity  most  exactly  and  surely  foreseen, 
and  knoweth,  who  of  the  number  of  them  that  are  called  will 
or  will  not  believe  in  Christ,  who  of  them  that  are  converted 
will  or  will  not  remain  steadfast  in  the  faith,  and  who  of  them 
that  have  fallen  into  grievous  sins  will  return,  and  who  of 
them  will  perish  in  their  wickedness.  .  .  But  because  the 
Lord  hath  reserved  such  secret  things  for  his  own  wisdom 
alone,  nor  hath  revealed  anything  of  this  matter  in  His  Word, 
much  less  hath  commanded  us  to  occupy  our  imaginations 
with  these  mysteries,  but  rather  hath  forbidden  us  to  take 
them  in  hand :  it  doth  not  become  us  to  give  liberty  to  our 
imaginations,  to  establish  anything,  argue  thereon,  or  wish  to 
search  out  those  most  hidden  things,  but  we  should  rest  in  his 
revealed  Word  to  which  He  hath  referred  us."  X 

6.  "  If  any  one  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  predes- 
tination of  God  in  such  manner  that  distressed  minds  can 
derive  no  consolation  from  it,  but  rather  occasion  of  despair  is 
given  unto  them,  or  so  that  impenitent  persons  are  confirmed 

*  Formula  Concordia^  802.  j  Ibid.  809.  J  Ibid.  812. 


324  CONSERVATIVE   RE  FOB  MATT  ON. 

in  their  security,  wickedness  and  wilfulness,  then  nothing  is 
more  sure  than  that  this  article  is  not  taught  by  him  according 
to  the  Word  and  will  of  God."  * 

7.  "  IN'ot  only  the  preaching  of  repentance,  but  the  promise 
of  the.  Gospel  is  also  universal,  that  is,  belongs  to  all  men. 
For  this  reason  Christ  hath  commanded  '  that  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  among  all  nations  ; ' 
*  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  ; ' 
'  Christ  taketh  awav  the  sin  of  the  icorhl  ; '  '  He  2:ave  his  flesh 
for  the  life  of  the  icorld  ; '  '  Ilis  blood  is  the  propitiation  for 
the  sins  of  the  lohole  world  ; '  Christ  says :  '  Come  unto  Me 
all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest.'  '  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that  he  might 
have  mercy  upon  all.^  '  The  Lord  is  not  willing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance.'  '  The 
same  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  Him.' 
'  The  righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ 
unto  all^  and  upon  all  them  that  believe.'  '  And  this  is 
the  will  of  the  Father  that  every  one  which  believeth  on 
Christ  should  have  everlasting  life.'  And  Christ  wisheth  that 
in  general  unto  all  to  whom  repentance  is  preached,  this  promise 
also  of  the  Gospel  should  be  set  forth. "f 

8.  "  This  calling  of  God,  Avhich  he  oifereth  to  lis  through  the 
word  of  the  Gospel  is  not  feigned  and  pretended,  but  God  by 
that  calling  revealeth  to  us  His  will,  to  wit,  that  in  those  whom 
He  calls  in  this  way  He  wisheth  to  be  eflicacious  through  His 
word,  that  they  may  be  enlightened,  converted  and  saved."  J 

9.  "  The  reason  why  many  are  called  but  few  chosen,  is  not 
the  divine  calling,  which  is  made  through  the  AVord,  as  if 
God's  intent  were  this:  'I  indeed  call  outwardly  to  a  partici- 
pation in  my  heavenly  kingdom,  all  to  whom  that  word  is  set 
fortli :  but  it  is  not  the  thought  of  my  heart  that  all  should  be 
seriously  called  to  salvation,  but  that  a  few  only  should  be  so 
called  ;  for  my  will  is  this,  that  a  larger  part  of  those  wliom  I 
call  through  the  Word,  shall  neither  be  enlightened  nor  con- 
verted, although  through  my  AVord,  by  which  they  are  called, 
I  signify  my  mind  unto  them  otherwise,'  for  this  would  be  to 

*  Fonrmla  Concordiii:,  728.  t   H'^kI.  804.  t  Ibid.  805. 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  325 

impute  to  God  contradictory  wills,  as  if  He  who  is  the  eternal 
truth,  were  divided  against  Himself,  or  spake  one  thing  and 
designed  another."*^ 

10.  "  As  God  in  Ilis  eternal  counsel  hath  ordained,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  shall,  througli  the  Word,  call,  enlighten,  and  con- 
vert the  elect,  and  that  He  will  justify  and  eternally  save  all 
those  who  embrace  Christ  in  true  faith:  so  also  in  that  same 
counsel  He  hath  decreed,  that  He  will  harden,  reprobate,  and 
consign  to  eternal  damnation  those  who  being  called  through 
the  Word  put  it  away  from  them,  and  resist  the  Holy  Spirit, 
(who  wisheth  through  the  Word  efficaciously  to  work  and  to 
be  efficacious  in  them,)  and  obstinately  remain  steadfast  in  that 
rebellion."  t 

11.  "  The  cause  of  this  despising  of  the  AVord  is  not  the  fore- 
knowledge or  predestination  of  God,  but  the  perverse  will  of 
man,  which  refuses  or  Avrests  that  mean  and  instrument  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  God  offers  to  man  in  that  He  calls  him,  and 
wdiich  resists  the  Holy  Ghost  .  .  as  Christ  sayeth :  '  How  often 
would  I  have  gathered  together  and  ye  would  not.'  "  :j: 

Finally,  .  .  he  Formuli  treats  of  rarhns  factions,  heresies 
and  sects,  which  have  never  embraced  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
The  Errors  enumerated  and  rejected  are  those  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, "  who  are  divided  into  a  number  of  sects,  of  wdiom  some 
defend  more, some  fewer  Errors;  "  of  Schwenkfeldians  ;  of  the 
'New  Arians  ;  and  of  the  New  Antitrinitarians,  who,  as  here 
characterized,  are  either  Tritheists,  or  Subordinationists. 

Such  is  the  doctrine,  such  are  the  antitheses  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  They  are  in  every  part  consonant  with  Holy 
Scripture,  with  the  General  Creeds,  and  with  the  earlier  Con- 
fessions of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  Formula  is  but  the  old 
doctrine  repeated,  systematized,  applied  and  defended.  The 
chief  charge  against  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  that  it  caused 
a  complete  separation  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Zwinglian- 
Calvinistic  Churches.  This  is  a  great  mistake.  The  cause  of 
the  separation  was  the  divergent  convictions  and  principles  on 
both  sides.  The  Formula  did  not  orio-inate  a  single  one  of  the 
questions  it  settled.     But  the   Formula  of  Concord  was  not 

*  Formula  Concordite,  807.  f  Ibid,  808.  %  Ibid,  809. 


326  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

even  tlie  occasion  of  tlie  separation.  So  far  was  this  from  being 
the  case,  that  after  the  controversies  which  necessarily  attended 
the  first  appearance  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  a.far  healthier 
and  kindlier  feeling  prevailed  between  the  two  Communions. 
Before  the  Formula,  many  things  existed  in  their  relations 
which  tended  to  demoralize  the  Heformed  Church,  as  much  as 
it  did  to  disorganize  and  distress  the  Lutheran  Church. 
Truthful  separation  is  far  better  than  dishonest  union,  and  two 
Churches  are  happier,  and  more  kindly  in  their  mutual  rela- 
tions, when  their  ditterences  are  frankly  confessed,  than  when 
they  are  clouding  with  ambiguities  and  double  meanings  the 
real  divero-encies.  And  even  if  two  Communions  are  in  down- 
right  conflict,  it  is  better  that  the  battles  should  be  on  the  sides 
of  clearly  marked  lines,  or  well  understood  issues  —  should 
be  the  struggles  of  nationalities,  under  the  laws  of  war  rather 
than  the  savage,  ill-defined  warfare  of  the  border,  and  of  the 
bush.  That  the  open  transitions  to  the  Reformed  side  of  a  few 
nominally  Lutheran  States  were  really  occasioned  by  the  For- 
mula, is  not  true.  Alost  of  these  movements  were  those  of  po- 
litical force,  in  the  face  of  the  bitter  regrets  of  the  people.  .No 
State  which  honestly  held  the  Augsburg  Confession  went  over 
to  the  Keformed.  If  the  Formula  uncov^ered  and  shamed  out 
of  the  pretence  of  Lutheranism  any  who  were  making  a  mere 
cloak  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  it  is  something  to  love  it  for. 
It  is  charged  upon  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  it  repressed 
the  Mclanclithonian  tendency  in  our  Church,  and  substituted  the 
fossilization  of  the  letter  and  of  the  dogma  for  the  freedom  of 
the  spirit  and  of  the  Word.  This  again  is  not  true.  It  is  not 
true  that  the  spirit  within  our  Church  which  the  Formula  en- 
countered, was  that  of  genuine  freedom.  It  was  rather  the  spirit 
which  was  making  a  real  bondage  under  the  pretences  of  lib- 
erty, a  spirit  which  was  tolerant  only  lo  vagueness  and  laxity, 
not  to  well-defined  doctrinal  conviction.  It  was  a  spirit  which 
softened  and  relaxed  the  Church  when  she  needed  her  utmost 
vigor  and  firmness.  It  was  a  spirit  of  fiilse  deference  to  anti- 
quity and  human  authority  over  against  the  Word.  It  yielded 
now  to  a  false  philosophizing,  now  to  the  Reformed,  now  to 
Lome.     It  tried  to  adjust  some  of  the  most  vital  doctrines  to 


FORMULA    OF  CONCORD.  327 

the  demands  of  Rationalism  on  the  one  side,  of  Romanism  on 
the  other.  In  the  "  Interims,"  it  came  near  sacrificing  all  that 
had  been  gained  in  the  straggle  with  the  I^apacy.  It  confessed 
in  effect,  that  the  principle  of  the  Reformation  could  reach  no 
definite  result,  that  the  better  path  it  claimed  to  open,  led  for- 
ever toward  something  w^hich  could  never  be  reached.  So  far 
as  Melanchthon's  great  gifts  were  purely  and  wisely  used,  the 
Formula  fixed  these  results  in  the  Church.  It  did  not  over- 
throw the  Confessional  works  in  which  Melanchthon's  greatest 
glory  is  involved.  It  established  the  Confession  and  Apology 
forever  as  the  Confession  of  the  Church  as  a  Avhole.  The  Book 
of  Concord  treats  Melanchthon  as  the  Bible  treats  Solomon. 
It  opens  wide  the  view  of  his  wisdom  and  glory,  and  draAVs  the 
veil  over  the  record  of  his  sadder  days.  Melanchthon's  tem- 
perament was  more  exacting  than  Luther's.  He  made  his 
personal  gentleness  a  dogmatism  and  demanded  impossibilities. 
The  time  of  the  deluge  had  come, —  a  world  had  to  be  purified ; 
and  it  was  useless  to  send  out  the  dove  till  the  waters  had 
passed  jtway.  The  era  of  the  Reformation  could  not  be  an 
era  of  Melanchthonian  mildness.  To  ask  this,  is  to  ask 
that  war  shall  be  peace,  that  battles  shall  be  fought  with 
feathers,  and  that  armies  shall  move  to  the  wavino-  of  olive 
branches.  The  war  of  the  Formula  was  an  internal  defensive 
war;  yet,  like  all  civil  wars,  it  left  behind  it  inevitable  wounds 
which  did  not  at  once  heal  up.  The  struo-crle  in  Churches  or 
States,  which  ends  in  a  triumph  over  the  schism  of  their  own 
children,  cannot  for  generations  command  the  universal  sym- 
pathy, with  w^iich  the  overthrow  of  a  common  foe  is  regarded. 
All  England  is  exultant  m  the  victories  over  France,  but  even  yet 
there  are  Englishmen,  to  whom  Charles  is  a  martyr,  and  Crom- 
w^ell  a  devil.  The  war  of  the  Formula  was  fouo-ht  for  2:reat 
principles  :  it  was  bravely  and  uncompromisingly  fought ;  but 
it  was  fought  magnanimously  under  the  old  banner  of  the 
Cross.  It  was  crowned  with  victory,  and  that  victory  brought 
peace. 

Most  surely  will  time  bring  all  that  love  our  Church  to  feel, 
that  w^ithout  the  second  war  and  the  second  peace,  the  war 
and  peace  of  Conservation,  the  richest  results  of  the  first,  the 


328  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

war  of  Reformation,  would  have  been  lost.  Hopeless  division, 
anarcliy,  ruin  and  absorption,  were  the  perils  from  which  the 
Formula  of  Concord  saved  our  Church.  The  loss  of  Germany 
would  have  been  the  loss  of  Lutheranism  throughout  the 
world,  and  with  it  the  loss  of  Protestantism  itself. 

Feeling  the  responsibility  of  their  position,  not  without  con- 
sciousness of  the  greatness  of  the  work  they  had  done,  the 
authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  humbly,  yet  jos'ously,  closed 
it  with  these  solemn  words:  "  Wherefore,  in  the  presence  of 
Almighty  God,  and  of  Christ's  whole  Church,  both  of  the 
living,  and  of  the  generations  which  shall  follow  us,  it  has 
been  our  purpose  to  testify,  that  of  the  Articles  in  Contro- 
versy, the  Declaration  we  have  now  made,  and  none  other,  is 
in  very  deed  our  doctrine,  faith  and  Confession.  In  this  Con- 
fession, by  God's  grace,  we  are  ready  with  fearless  hearts  to 
appear  and  render  an  account  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Against  this  Declaration  we  will  speak  nothing,  and 
write  nothing,  openly  or  secretly,  but,  the  Lord  helping  us, 
will  remain  steadfast  in  it  to  the  end.  In  testimony  thereof, 
with  mature  deliberation,  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  calling  upon 
His  name,  we  have  with  our  own  hands  set  our  names  to  this 
Declaration." 


VIII. 

SOME  MISTAKES  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  HISTORY  AND 
DOCTRINES  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN 
CHURCH. 

A  REVIEW  OF  DR.  SHEDD'S  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  * 


IT  cannot  be  claimed  for  Dr.  Shedd's  book  that  it  is  the  pro- 
foundest  and  most  exhaustive  history  of  Christian  doctrine, 
but  it  may  be  asserted  with  justice  that  it  is  eminently  pleasant 
and  readable.  But  if  it  be  not  as  profound  as  is  conceivable, 
it  is  as  profound  as  its  general  aim  permits  it  to  be,  and  if  it 
does  not  always  exhaust  its  svibjects,  it  never  exhausts  its 
readers.  We  cannot  concede  to  Dr.  Shedd  all  that  he  seems  to 
claim,  and  we  are  sure  with  perfect  sincerity,  in  regard  to  the 
originality,  or  even  the  self-origination  of  his  method.  It 
varies  so  little  from  that  of  some  of  the  German  works  to 
which  he  confesses  his  obligations,  that  without  presupposing 
their  plan, we  can  hardly  conceive  that  he  would  have  fallen 
upon  his.  He  investigates  "  each  of  the  principal  subjects  by 
itself,  starting  from  the  first  beginnings  of  scien-  DrShcdd'siiis- 
tific  reflection  upon  it,  and  going  down  to  the  t.ry  of  uoctiine. 
latest  forms  of  statement."  Dr.  Shedd  accepts,  at  the  very 
out-start,  the  idea  of  doctrinal  development,  and  one  of  the 
best  features  of  his  book  and  of  its  plan  is,  that  he  so  clearly 
and  satisfactorily  exhibits  the  processes  and  results  of  this 
development.       Revelation   is    tmchanging,    but    the    science 

*  History  of  Christian    Doctrine.     By  William  G.   T.   Sliedd,   D.   D.     In  two 
Voluuies.     New  York  :  Charles  Scribner. 

329 


330  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION, 

^vliich    classifies,  and    adjusts  in  their  due  relations  to  each 
other  its  doctrines,  which  sees   each  in  the  light  of  all,  and 
under  whose    guidance,  to    use    the  vigorous    w^ords    of   Dr. 
Shedd,  "  the  ohjections  of  the  heretic  or  latitudinarian  only 
elicit  a  more  exhaustive,and,  at  the  same  time,  more  guarded 
statement,  which  carries  the  Church  still  nearer  to  the  sub- 
stance of  revelation  and  the  heart  of  the  mystery,"  this  science, 
in  its  own  nature,  must  have  growth.     The  man  who  takes  up 
the  Bible  now,  without  reference  to  what  the  minds  of  genera- 
tions have  done  towards  its  elucidation,  is  exactly  as  foolish  as 
the  man  who  would  effect  to  take  up  any  great  branch  of  science 
without  regard  to  what  has  been  done  before.     The  botanist's 
Rule  of  faith  was  Eve's  carpet  and  canopy,  but  not  until  Linnaeus 
was  the  botanist's  Confession  of  faith  set  forth.     Dr.  Shedd 
has  well  stated  and  well  guarded  the  doctrine  of  development. 
He  shows  that  development  is  not  creation,  nor  improvement. 
Botany  neither  creates  the  plants,  nor  improves  upon  the  facts 
connected  with    them;   but  it  develops  into   a  more  perfect 
knowledge  of  them,  and  out  of  that  higher  knowledge  into  a 
more  perfect  science.     The  plants  themselves  furnish  the  Rule 
of  the  botanist's  faith,  but  the  Systema  Plantarum  is  its  creed. 
The  science  develops,  but  it  develops  toward  the  absolute  truth, 
not  away  from  it  ;  and  the  more  perfect  the  doctrinal  develop- 
ment is,  the  nearer  has  it  come  to  the  ideal  of  God's  mind, 
which  has  its  image  in  His  word. 

Much  of  Dr.  Shedd's  mode  of  thinking  is  certainly  not  the 
outgrowth  of  anything  characteristic  of  ^""ew  England.  The 
attitude  of  the  original  extreme  Puritanism  to  the  history  of 
the  ancient  Church,  was  very  different  from  his.  Puritanism, 
as  separatism,  had  no  history  for  it,  and  hence  it  repudiated 
history.  It  has  lived  long  enough  to  have  a  history,  to  recede 
from  its  extreme  positions,  and  to  receive  new  elements  of  life  ; 
and  Dr.  Shedd's  book  is  one  among  many  evidences  that 
Puritanism  seeks  a  history,  and  begins  to  appreciate  its  value 
—  the  value  not  only  of  its  own  history,  but  of  the  history  of 
the  whole  Church.  After  all  the  diversities  and  terrible 
internal  strifes  of  the  nominally  Christian  Church,  there  is  not 
any  great  part  of  it  that    can    safely  ignore    absolutely  any 


DR.    SHEDD'S  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINE.  331 

other  great  part.  Puritanism  cannot  say,  even  to  Romanism, 
"  I  have  no  need  of  thee,"  still  less  can  it  say  so  to  the  grand 
portions  of  evangelical  Protestantism.  Dr.  Shedd's  book  shows 
that  he  has  escaped  from  many  of  the  narrownesses  which  ob- 
scured the  genuine  glory  of  Puritanism,  for  genuine  glory  it 
has,  and  a  great  deal  of  it.  N'o  book  of  which  we  know,  ema- 
nating from  a  New  England  mind,  shows  as  much  acquaint- 
ance as  this  book  does  with  the  character  and  weisfht  of 
Lutheran  theology. 

Nevertheless,  one  of  the  greatest  weaknesses  of  the  book  is 
its  lack  of  a  thorough  and  independent  knowledge  of  our 
Church.  Dr.  Shedd,  especially  in  his  exhibitions  of  the 
Patristic  and  English  views,  shows  independent  research  ;  but 
in  the  treatment  of  the  Lutheran  theoloo:y  he  drives  unmistak- 
able  evidence  that  his  reading  has  been  comparatively  slight 
among  the  masters,  especially  the  old  masters  of  our  Church. 
He  has  trusted  too  much  to  manuals,  and  yet  has  hardly  used 
them  enough.  lie  exhibits  views  as  characteristic  of  Calvin- 
istic  divines,  or  of  the  Calvinistic  symbols,  which  are  mere 
resonances  of  the  Lutheran  theology,  whose  glory  it  is,  first  to 
have  brought  into  the  distinct  sphere  of  science  the  great 
Biblical  truths  of  which  we  speak.  The  scientific  development 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  redemptory  character  of  the  active  obe- 
dience of  Christ,  is  due  to  the  Lutheran  theologians.  The  true 
and  profound  views  of  the  person  of  Christ,  which  Dr.  Shedd 
presents  in  the  language  of  Hooker  and  Hopkins,  though  in- 
volved in  the  Athanasian  Creed,  received  their  full  scientific  shape 
from  the  Christological  labors  and  Controversies  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  The  Lutheran  Church  has 
been  the  ultimate  spring  of  almost  all  the  profound  theologiciil 
thought  of  modern  times.  Even  Calvinism,  without  it,  Avould 
not  have  been.  Calvin  was  saved,  we  might  almost  say  created, 
by  being  first  Lutheranized. 

It  is  refreshing  to  find  in  Dr.  Shedd's  book  so  much  that  is 
sound,  and  deep,  and  old  ;  but  which  will,  to  the  mass  of  think- 
ers in  New  England,  seem  like  novelty.  Nothing,  indeed,  is 
so  novel  in  New  England  as  the  old  theology,  in  some  of  its 
aspects.     How,  for  example,  must  the  doctrine  of  the  true  sac- 


332  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

rameutal  presence  mj'stify  tliem?  Dr.  Sliedd,  perhaps  wisely, 
has  spared  them  this.  There  are,  indeed,  great  departments 
of  the  history  of  doctrine  on  which  he  does  not  enter.  He 
gives  us,  for  example,  nothing  direct  on  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  of  Baptism  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  yet  these  in- 
volve many  of  the  most  vital  questions  of  the  hour.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  has  gone,  Ave  think,  heyond  the  bound,  in  devo- 
ting a  wdiole  book  to  the  history  of  Apologetics,  and  another  to 
an  account  of  Symbols.  He  has  done  it  so  well,  however,  that 
we  not  only  forgive  him,  but  thank  him  for  it. 

One  very  interesting  feature  of  the  book  is  its  presenta- 
tion of  many  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  in  their  coinci- 
dence -with  the  Lutheran ;  as,  for  instance,  in  the  paragraphs 
on  the  "  Lutheran-Calvinistic  Theory  of  Original  Sin,"  "  The 
Lutheran-Calvinistic  Theory  of  Regeneration  ; "  and  on  other 
points.  Dr.  Shedd  seems  to  fear  that "  the  chief  criticism  that 
may  be  made  upon  the  work  is,  that  it  betokens  subjective 
qualities  unduly  for  an  historical  production."  On  the  con- 
trary, we  think,  that  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  fidelity  to 
conviction,  his  book  is  remarkably  free  from  the  offensive 
obtrusion  of  merely  personal  opinions.  There  is  not  a  page  in 
it  whose  tone  is  unworthy  of  the  refined  candor  of  a  Christian 
gentleman.  We  are  struck,  indeed,  as  we  have  said,  with 
what  we  regard  as  mistakes  in  reference  to  the  Lutheran  Church, 
but  the  statements  of  Dr.  Shedd  are  made  in  a  tone  which  re- 
lieves them  of  all  asperity  ;  and  he  knows  so  much  more  about 
our  Church  than  most  writers  of  English  who  have  attempted 
to  describe  it,  that  we  feel  that  his  mistakes  are  involuntary. 
They  are  fewer  than  might  have  been  anticipated.  Dr.  Shedd 
speaks  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  ''  the  sjmibol  which  was 
to  consolidate  the  new  evangelical  Church  into  one  external 
unity,  in  opposition  to  that  of  Rome."  "  But  the  doctrines  of 
sin  and  redemption  had  been  misstated  by  the  Papal  mind  at 
Trent ;  and  hence  the  principal  part  of  the  new  and  original 
work  of  the  L\itheran  divines  w\as  connected  with  these."  This 
collocation  might  mislead  the  reader,  who  forgets  that  the 
Augsburg  Confession  was  prepared  fifteen  years  before  the  first 
convention  of  the  Council  of  Trent.     Dr.  Shedd  speaks  of  the 


0 RIG IX  OF  THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.      333 

Augsburg  Confession  as  "the  first  in  time"  among  our  sym- 
bols. Twelve  pages  after,  he  corrects  himself  by  mentioning 
that  the  Two  Catechisms  were  published  in  1520,  a  year  before 
tlie  Augsburg  Confession.  Dr.  Shedd  says  appreciatively : 
"  The  general  tone  and  spirit  of  the  first  creed  of  the  Reforma- 
tion is  a  union  of  firmness  and  mildness.  The  characteristics 
of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  the  two  minds  most  concerned  in 
its  formation,  are  harmoniously  blended  in  it." 

In  Dr.  Shedd's  interesting  volumes,  we  naturally  look  with 
most  interest  for  that  which  bears  upon  our  own  Church.  His 
remarks  upon  the  origin,  character  and  supposed  imperfections 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  may  require  some  examination. 
Dr.  Shedd  speaks  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  ^he  origin  of 
public   and    received    Confession    of  the    common  the    Aug^i.urg 

^1  1  m    1    •  1  1     Confession. 

faith  of  the  Protestant  Church.  Taking  the  word 
"  Protestant "  in  its  original  and  strictly  historical  sense,  this 
is  true,  but  it  is  not,  nor  was  it  ever  the  received  Confession 
of  all  whom  we  now  call  "Protestants."  Two  counter  Con- 
fessions, Zwingli  and  the  Tetrapolitan,  were  prepared  for 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg.  There  are  some  defects  too  in  Dr. 
Shedd's  statement  of  the  origin  of  the  Confession.  He  says  : 
"The  process  began  with  a  commission  from  John,  Prince  of 
Saxony,  given  in  March,  1530,  to  his  favorite  theologians, 
Luther,  Justus  Jonas,  Bugenhagen,  and  Melanchthon,  to  pre- 
pare a  series  of  succinct  and  comprehensive  articles  to  be  dis- 
cussed and  defended  as  the  Protestant  form  of  doctrine."  Dr. 
Shedd's  statement  in  this  sentence  is  defective,  for  it  does  not 
furnish  the  reason  of  this  commission,  and  it  seems  inaccurate 
in  making  this  commission  the  beginning  of  the  process  which 
was  completed  in  the  laying  of  the  Confession  before  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg.  The  ultimate  ground-work  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  is  the  Fifteen  Articles  of  Marburg, which  were  the 
result  of  the  conference  between  the  Zwinglians  and  Lutherans, 
October,  1529.  These  Are  more  closely  related  to  the  Seventeen 
Articles  of  Schwabach  than  the  Schwabach  Articles  are  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  The  real  immediate  beginning  of  the 
process  was  in  the  summons  of  the  Diet  by  the  Emperor 
Charles  Y.,  dated  January,  1530,  in  which  he  stated  as  one  of 


334  C  0 NSER  VA TI VE    R  EFOR MA  TI 0 X. 

tho  objects  of  the  Diet,  the  comparison  and  harmonizing  of  the 
conflicting  views  which  were  dividing  the  Church,  and  to  this 
end  required  of  the  evangelical  princes  a  statement  of  their 
doctrine.  The  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  leader  of  the  Evangelical 
States,  foresaw  that  for  any  such  comparison  a  clear  and  judi- 
cious statement  in  writing,  both  as  to  doctrines  and  abuses, 
would  be  necessary  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants,  (Lutherans,) 
and  gave  the  command  to  the  four  theologians,  to  prepare  the 
needed  statement,  and  present  it  to  him  in  eight  days  at  Tor- 
gau.  The  shortness  of  the  time  allotted  is  the  solution  of  the 
fact,  that  "  these  theologians  joined  upon  the  work  that  had 
already  been  performed  by  one  of  their  number,"  though  it  is 
not  strictly  accurate  to  say  that  the  work  had  been  performed 
by  one  of  their  number,  as  Luther  says,  in  so  many  words,  in 
his  Prefiice  to  these  Articles,  that  they  were  not  his  exclusive 
work.^  Ilis  co-laborers  in  preparing  thera  were  Melanchthon, 
Jonas,  Osiander,  Brentius  and  Agricola.  "In  the  preceding 
year,  (1529,)  Luther,  at  a  Convention  of  Protestants,  at  Schwa- 
bach,  had  prepared  seventeen  Articles,  to  be  adopted  as  the 
doctrinal  bond  of  union.  These  Articles,  this  body  of  Com- 
missioners appointed  by  Prince  John  adopted,  and,  having 
added  to  their  number  some  new  ones  that  had  respect  to  cer- 
tain ecclesiastical  abuses,  presented  the  Avhole  to  the  Crown 
Prince,  in  Torgau,  in  March,  1530.  Hence,  they  are  sometimes 
denominated  the  'Articles  of  Torgau.'  "  The  reader  must  not 
suppose,  as  he  might,  that  "  Prince  John"Avas  one  person,  and 
"  the  Crown  Prince "  another.  We  do  not  know  why  Dr. 
Shedd  prefers  the  title  "  Prince  "  to  the  more  definite  and  his- 
torical term  Elector,  unless  as  a  resident  of  ISTew  York,  there 
is  special  music  to  his  ear  in  the  style  and  title  of  that  old  time 
pet  of  the  P^mpir.'  State,  "  Prince  John  "  Van  Buren.  And 
why  does  he  style  the  Elector  the  "  Crown  Prince?  " 

In  the  nomenclature  of  the  best  recent  writers  on  the  history 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  title  *'  Schwabach  Articles  " 
is  confined  to  those  of  the  27th  of  October,  1529,  and  the  name 
of  "Torgjiu  Articles"  is  restricted  to  the  Articles  prepared  by 

*  Sie  sind  nit  von  mir  allein  gcstellet.  The  wholi^  jirc  given  in  Cy prism's  llis- 
toria,  (Gotba,  17;>0,)  lieilage,  p.  159.     Corpus  Ueformiitorura,  xxvi.  138. 


the  four  theologians  at  Wittenherg,  March,  loSO,  and  pre- 
sented at  Torgau.  Dr.  Shedd  goes  on  to  say  :  "  This  draft  of 
a  Confession  was  then  brought  before  the  Tni[)Crial  Diet,  at 
Augsburg,  for  examination  and  ado[)tion.  Here  it  received 
revision,  and  some  slight  modifications,  under  the  leadersliip 
of  Mehuichthon,  who  was  present  at  the  discussion  before  the 
Diet,  and  was  aided  during  the  progress  of  the  debate,  by  tlie 
advice  and  concurrence  of  Luther,  then  at  Coburg,  in  a  free 
and  full  correspondence.  The  Symbol  having  been  formed  in 
this  manner,  was  subscribed  by  the  princes  and  authorities  of 
the  Protestant  interest,  and  in  their  name  publicly  read  in 
German,  before  the  imperial  assembly,  and  a  copy,  in  both 
German  and  Latin,  presented  to  the  Emperor.  The  Augsl)urg 
Confession  thus  became  the  authorized  doctrinal  basis  of  Pro- 
testantism in  Germany."  In  this  account  w^e  are  compelled  to 
say  there  is  more  than  one  mistake.  !N^either  this  draft  of  a 
Confession,  nor  any  other  draft,  was  ever  brought  before  the 
Imperial  Diet,  either  for  examination  and  adoption,  or  for  any 
other  purpose.  Of  course,  therefore,  it  received  no  revision 
there,  or  modification.  In'ouc  of  the  processes  connected  with 
the  formation  of  the  Confession,  took  place  in  the  presence  of 
the  Diet.  The  Diet  knew  nothing  of  its  contents  up  to  the 
time  of  the  reading  of  it.  After  the  Elector  had  received,  at 
Torgau,  the  Schwabach,  and  the  Torgau  Articles  proper,  he 
started  for  Augsburg,  leaving,  for  prudential  reasons,  Luther 
at  Coburg,  with  the  understanding  that  nothing  final  should 
be  done  without  consulting  him.  The  Elector  and  his  retinue 
entered  Augsburg,  May  2nd,  and  remained  there.  During  the 
rest  of  the  month,  and  for  the  first  half  of  June,  the  secular 
and  ecclesiastical  dio-nitaries  were  o-atherins:  for  the  Diet.  In 
this  interval,  from  May  26th  to  June  20th,  the  Emperor  not 
having  arrived,  and  no  sessions  of  the  Diet  having  taken  place, 
Melanchthon,  with  the  aid  and  advice  of  the  other  theologians, 
and  of  all  the  representatives  of  the  Evangelical  interest,  given 
in,  sentence  by  sentence,  did  the  work  of  composing  the  Con- 
fession which  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  Diet,  laying,  as  the 
ground-work,  the  Articles  of  Schwabach  and  Torgau,  but  doing 
far  more  than  would  be  generally  understood  in  Dr.  Sliedd's 


336  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

statement,  that  these  Articles  "  received  revision  and  some 
slight  modifications."  This  Confession,  when  finished,  was 
sent  by  the  Elector  to  Luther,  by  whom,  without  a  solitary 
change,  or  suggestion  of  a  change,  it  was  approved,  May  15th, 
one  month  previous  to  the  entrance  of  the  Emperor  into  Augs- 
burg. The  first  session  of  the  Diet  was  held  June  20th,  and  it 
was  determined  that  the  religious  questions  should  be  taken 
up  first. 

On  the  23d  of  June,  the  Protestant  Princes  signed  the  Con- 
fession. On  the  24th  they  received  permission  to  present  the 
Confession  on  the  following  dav.  The  material  labor  on  the 
Augsburg  Confession  was  finished  and  approved  by  Luther 
more  than  a  month  before  the  Diet  met.  In  the  intervening 
weeks,  Melanchthon  elaborated  the  style,  and  gave  higher 
finish  to  the  for!^  of  the  Confession,  and  before  the  Diet  met, 
the  Confession  was  finished.  It  was  then  no  draft,  but  the 
perfect  Confession,  which  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Confessors, 
when  the  Diet  met ;  but  neither  draft  nor  Confession  was  ever 
submitted  for  adoption  to  the  Diet.  It  received,  and  could  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  receive,  no  revision  or  "  slight  modifica- 
tion before  the  Diet."  Melanchthon  was  not  present  at  the 
discussion  before  the  Diet,  not  only,  although  this  would  seem 
to  be  enough,  because  there  was  no  such  discussion,  but  he  was 
not,  in  fact,  present  in  the  Diet  at  any  discussions  of  any  sort. 
Melanchthon  did  not  hear  the  Augsburg  Confession  read. 
Justus  Jonas  was  the  only  evangelical  theologian  who  heard 
the  Confession  read,  an  honor  which  may  have  been  thought 
due  to  his  juristic  skill,  or  to  his  oflScial  position.  There  was 
no  discussion  of  the  Articles  of  the  Confession  before  the  Diet, 
and  no  debate  in  regard  to  them  to  make  any  progress,  to  be 
shared  in  by  Melanchthon,  or  to  require  the  aid  of  Luther. 
The  Symbol  was  not  formed  in  this  manner,  as  we  have  seen, 
but  was  finished  before  the  Diet  began.  Equally  mistaken  is 
the  statement,  that  Melanchthon  entered  upon  a  detailed  refu- 
tation of  the  Romish  Confutation,  "  so  far  as  he  could  recon- 
struct the  document  from  his  own  recollection  on  hearing  it 
read,"  as  he  did  not  hear  it  read,  and  was  at  first  entirely  de- 
pendent on  "  notes  that  had  been  taken  by  others  who  were 


THE  CONFESSION  NOT  ROMANIZING.  Z^^^ 

present  at  the  reading."  Dr.  Shedd  has  evidently  eitlier  been 
foHowing  very  inaccurate  guides,  or,  for  some  reason,  has  mis- 
understood his  authorities  on  these  points.  His  bibliography 
of  the  literature  of  the  History  of  Symbols  does  not,  indeed, 
seem  to  indicate  that  he  has  made  it  a  matter  of  very  thorough 
study  ;  for  there  is  no  mention  made  in  it  of  works  of  the 
very  highest  rank,  as  for  example,  of  Carpzov,  Baumgarten, 
Boehmer,  and  Semler,  among  the  older  writers  ;  of  Plank 
Marheineke,  Tittmann  and  Marsh,  in  the  first  quarter  of  the 
present  century  ;  of  Mohter  and  KoUner,  whose  merits  are  of 
the  most  distinguished  order;  or  of  Matthes  and  Rudolph 
HofFman,  and  others,  who,  as  good  writers  of  the  most  recent 
date,  deserve  mention.  The  selectest  bibliography  ouo-ht  to 
embrace  all  of  these.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  the  separate 
History  of  Symbols  is  not  more  properly  in  place  in  a  history 
of  Doctrines,  than  a  history  of  Polemics,  of  Patristics,  or  of 
Biblical  Interpretations  would  be,  for  all  these  are,incidentallv, 
sources  of  illustration  of  the  History  of  Doctrine.  Each  of 
them  is,  moreover,  comprehensive  enough  for  a  distinct  treat- 
ment. Dr.  Shedd  has  made  his  plan  too  comprehensive,  and 
necessarily  renders  it  relatively  weaker  at  certain  points.  The 
plan  which  Dr.  Holmes  has  rendered  so  renowned,  of  makino- 
the  weakest  point  as  strong  as  the  rest,  is  exquisite  in  theory, 
but  difficult  in  practical  realization. 

"  The  Augsburg  Confession,"  says  Dr.  Shedd,  "  is  divided 
into  two  parts  :  the  one,  positive  and  didactii^  in  The  Aug^'urg 
its    contents;  the   other,   neo^ative   and    polemic."   I;""*""^^'"'.^    ""* 

'  •^  i  Humanizing. 

ihe  Augsburg  Confession,  as  it  is  usually  and  was  consubstantia- 
most  anciently  divided,  consists  of  the  Preface,  Chief  '^^"^^^ 
Articles  of  Faith,  The  Articles  on  Abuses,  and  the  Church. 
Epilogue.  Ki)llner  makes  a  fifth  part  of  the  Epilogal  Prologue, 
which  separates  and  unites  the  Articles  on  Abuses.  Nevertheless, 
Dr.  Shedd  very  properly  divides  it,  in  a  general  way,  into  two 
parts.  The  first  of  the  chief  parts,  however,  in  addition  to  its 
positive  statements  of  doctrine,  has  negative  antitheses  on  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Original  Sin,  the  Efficacy  of  the  Min- 
istry, Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  Repentance,  the  Use  of 
Sacraments,  of  Civil  matters,  the  Second  Coming  of  Christ, 


338  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

and  Free  Will.  On  a  number  of  the  points,  arguments  are  urged, 
Scripture  is  quoted  and  Patristic  authorities  appealed  to,  and  in 
the  Article  on  Good  AVorks,  the  prevailing  character  is  entirely 
Apologetic.  The  Doctrine  of  Good  Works  had  been  stated  in 
the  sixth  article,  the  twentieth  is  devoted  to  the  defence  of  it. 

Dr.  Shedd  exhibits  the  thoroughly  catholic  and  evangelical 
character  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  regard  to  the  Trinity, 
Sin,  Salvation,  and  the  Last  Things.  He  goes  on,  however,  to 
make  some  strictures  on  certain  points,  and  says:  "Though 
decidedly  Protestant  upon  the  cardinal  points,  the  Augsburg 
Confession  contains  some  remnants  of  that  unscriptural  system, 
against  which  it  was  such  a  powerful  and  earnest  protest." 
He  admits,  that  upon  the  cardinal  doftrines^  the  Augsburg 
Confession  is  Protestant  and  sound,  lie  maintains,  however, 
that  the  same  Confession  contains  some  remnants  of  Romanism. 

We  feel  at  this  point  no  little  surprise  in  regard  to  Dr. 
Shedd's  admissions.  He  speaks  of  matters  as  of  little  moment, 
which  we  could  have  supposed  he,  as  a  Calvinist,  would  esteem 
as  highly  important.  Is  Dr.  Shedd  safe,  for  example,  in  con- 
ceding that  the  doctrines  concerning  the  Eucharistic  presence 
and  Absolution  are  not  cardinal ;  for  if  the  doctrines  are 
not  cardinal,  the  errors  in  regard  to  them,  cannot  be  ;  0!i 
his  premises,  then,  Transubstantiation  itself  is  not  a  cardinal 
error,  and  the  Romish  doctrine  of  priestly  absolution  is  not 
a  cardinal  error.  We,  as  Evangelical  Lutherans,  hold  that, 
as  error  on  these  points  is  cardinal,  so  must  the  truth, 
in  regard  to  them,  be  cardinal.  Fundamental  errors  are 
the  antitheses  of  fundamental  truths  only,  and  we  Evangel- 
ical Lutherans  actually  cherish,  on  Dr.  Shedd's  own  showing, 
a  stronger,  and,  as  he  would  perhaps  regard  it,  an  extremer 
opposition  to  the  Romish  errors  on  these  points,  than  he  does 
—  we  do  regard  the  Romish  errors  on  these  doctrines  as  cardinal, 
but  it  seems  he  does  not.  He  will  find  in  our  divines,  through 
centuries,  this  stern  opposition  to  these  very  errors  as  cardinal, 
and  among  no  men,  at  this  hour,  is  this  feeling  deeper,  than 
among  the  most  tenacious  adherents  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. How  does  he  account  for  it  then,  that  under  the 
nurture  oi'  this  very  Confession,  which  he  su[)[>oses  to  be  sym- 


THE   CONFESSION  NOT  ROMANIZING,  339 

pathetic  with  RomaniRm  at  some  points,  there  has  heen  nursed 
a  deeper  and  more  radical  anti-Romish  feeling  on  these  very 
doctrines,  than  his  own  ? 

Dr.  Shedd  goes  on  to  say  :  ^'  These  Popish  elements  are  found 
in  those  portions  particularly,  which  treat  of  the  sacraments  ; 
and  more  particularly  in  that  article  which  defines  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Supper.  In  Article  XIII,  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion is  careful  to  condemn  the  Papal  theory,  that  the  sacraments 
are  efficacious,  ex  opere  opcrato^  that  is  by  their  intrinsic  efficacy, 
without  regard  to  faith  in  the  recipient,  or  to  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  when,  in  Article  X,  it  treats  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  teaches  that  '  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  truly  present,  and  are  distributed  to  those  w^ho  partake  of 
the  Supper.'  This  doctrine  of  Consubsta ntiation,  Siccovdmg  to 
which  there  are  two  factors,  viz.  :  the  material  bread  and  wine, 
and  the  immaterial  or  spiritual  body  of  Christ  united  or  con- 
substantiated  in  the  consecrated  sacramental  symbols,  does  not 
difler  in  kind  from  the  Popish  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation, 
according  to  which  there  is,  indeed,  but'  one  element  in  the 
consecrated  symbols,  but  that  is  the  very  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  into  w4iich  the  bread  and  wine  have  been  transmuted." 
ISTothing  is  more  difficult,  than  for  a  thinker  or  believer  of  one 
school,  fairly  to  represent  the  opinions  and  faith  of  thinkers 
and  believers  of  another  school.  On  the  points  on  which  Dr. 
Shedd  here  dwells,  his  Puritanical  tone  of  mind  renders  it  so 
difficult  for  him  to  enter  into  the  very  heart  of  the  historical 
faith  of  the  Church,  that  we  can  hardly  blame  him,  that  if  it 
were  his  duty  to  attempt  to  present,  in  his  own  language,  the 
views  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  has  not  done  it  very  success- 
fully. From  the  moment  he  abandons  the  Lutheran  sense  of 
terms,  and  reads  into  them  a  Puritan  construction,  from  that 
moment  he  wanders  from  the  facts,  and  unconsciously  mis- 
represents. 

In  noticing  Dr.  Shedd's  critique  on  this  alleged  feature  of 
Romanism,  we  would  say  in  passing,  that  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation.  From 
first  to  last,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  rejected  the  name  of 
Consubstantiation  and  everything  which  that  name  properly 


340  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

implies.  Bold  and  uncompromising  as  our  Confessors  aiid 
Theologians  have  been,  if  the  word  Consubstantiation  (which 
is  not  a  more  human  term  than  Trinity  and  Original  Sin  are 
human  terms,)  had  expressed  correctly  their  doctrine,  they 
would  not  have  hesitated  to  use  it.  It  is  not  used  in  any  Con- 
fession of  our  Church,  and  we  have  never  seen  it  used  in  any 
standard  dogmatician  of  our  communion,  except  to  condemn 
the  term,  and  to  repudiate  the  idea  that  our  Church  held  the 
doctrine  it  involves.  We  might  adduce  many  of  the  leading 
evidences  on  this  point  ;  but  for  the  present,  we  will  refer  to 
but  a  few.  Bucer,  in  his  Letter  to  Comander,  confesses  that 
"he  had  done  injustice  to  Luther,  in  imputing  to  him  the 
doctrine  of  Impanation,"  and  became  a  defender  of  the  doctrine 
he  had  once  rejected.  Gerhard,  that  monarch  among  our 
theologians,  says  :  "  To  meet  the  calumnies  of  opponents,  we 
would  remark,  that  we  neither  believe  in  Irnpariation  nor  Con- 
suhstantiation^  nor  in  any  physical  or  local  presence  whatsoever. 
ItTor  do  we  believe  in  that  consubstantiative  presence  which 
some  define  to  be  the  inclusion  of  one  substance  in  another. 
Far  from  us  be  that  figment.  The  heavenly  thing  and  the 
earthly  thing,  in  the  Holy  Supper,  in  the  physical  and  natural 
sense,  are  not  present  with  one  another."  Baier,  among  our 
older  divines,  has  written  a  dissertation  expressly  to  refute  this 
calumny,  and  to  show,  as  Cotta  expresses  it,  "  that  our  theo- 
logians are  entirely  free  from  it  [pniitus  ahhorrere.y  Cotta,  in 
his  note  on  Gerhard,  says  :  "  The  word  ConsuhstanHafioii  may 
be  understood  in  different  senses.  Sometimes  it  denotes  a  local 
conJanr-Uon  of  two  bodies,  sometimes  a  commingling  of  them, 
as,  for  example,  when  it  is  alleged  that  the  bread  coalesnes  with 
the  bod\%  and  the  wine  with  the  blood,  into  one  substance. 
But  in  neither  sense  can  that  monstrous  doctrine  of  Consub- 
stantiation be  attributed  to  our  Church,  since  Lutherans  do 
not  believe  either  in  that  local  conjunction  of  two  bodies,  nor 
in  any  commingling  of  bread  and  of  Christ's  body,  of  wine  and 
of  His  blood."  To  pass  from  great  theologians  to  a  man  of  the 
highest  eminence  in  the  philosophical  and  scientific  world, 
Leibnitz,  in  his  Discourse  on  the  Conformity  of  Reason  with 
Faith,  says :   "  Evangelical  (Lutherans)  do  not  approve  of  the 


THE   CONFESSION  NOT  ROMANIZING.  341 

doctrine  of  Consuhstaiitiutlon  or  of  Impanation,  and  no  one 
could  impute  it  to  them,  unless  he  had  failed  to  make  himself 
properly  acquainted  with  their  views.''  To  return  again  to 
theologians,  Keiniiard  says  :  "  Our  Church  has  never  taught 
that  the  emblems  become  one  substance  with  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus,  an  opinion  commonly  denominated  Consuh- 
stantiation.''  Mosiieim  says :  *'  Those  err  who  say  that  we 
believe  in  ImjMiiation.  ^N'or  are  those  more  correct  who 
charge  us  with  believing  Suhpanation.  Equally  groundless  is 
the  charge  of  Consuhstantiation.  All  these  opinions  differ  very 
far  from  the  doctrine  of  our  Church." 

The  insinuations  of  Rationalism  against  this  doctrine  of 
our  Church  only  strengthen  the  affirmations  of  her  great 
divines.  If  all  the  great  Congregational  authorities  of  Xevv 
England,  of  the  past  century  and  the  present,  were  quite 
agreed  that  a  certain  doctrine  was  not  taught  in  the  Saybrook 
Platform,  and  the  "  liberal"  gentlemen  of  the  Theodore  Parker 
school  were  very  zealous  in  showing  that  it  was  taught  there, 
would  not  Dr.  Shedd  consider  the  affirmation  as  sealing  the 
negation?  Would  he  not  think  that,  if  it  w^ere  possible  to 
make  a  mistake  in  believing*  the  great  divines,  there  could  be 
no  mistake  possible  in  disbelieving  the  "  liberal"  polemics  ?  We 
beg  him  therefore,  as  he  desires  to  do,  as  he  w^ould  be  done  by, 
not  to  think  that  our  Lutheran  Church,  historically  the  mother 
of  pure  Churches,  in  some  sense  even  of  his  own  Church  among 
them,  has  ever  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  Consuhstantiation. 

One  word  more  on  the  allegation  of  Dr.  Shedd,  that  there 
are  Romanizing  elements  in  our  Confession.  Nothing  is  more 
easy,  and  few  things  are  more  perilous,  than  for  Protestants  to 
insist  that  some  peculiarity  of  this,  or  that  part  of  a  denomi- 
national system  of  doctrine,  is  a  relic  of  Romanism.  Dr.  Shedd 
makes  this  the  solvent  of  our  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
just  as  the  Baptist  makes  it  the  solvent  of  Dr.  Shedd 's  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism,  and  as  the  Socinian  makes  it  the  sol- 
vent of  Dr.  Shedd's  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  and  of  his  propitiatory  sacrifice,  ^ot  everything  we 
learn  from  Rome  is  Romish.  Xot  only  so,  but,  as  earnest 
Evangelical  Protestants,  we  may  admit,  that  deep  and  vital  as 


342  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

are  the  points  in  which  we  differ  from  Romanists,  they  are  not 
80  vital  as  those  in  which  we  agree  with  them,  and  that  Evan- 
gelical Protestants  are  not  so  remote  from  Romanists  as  they 
are  from  false  and  heretical  Protestants.  Dr.  Shedd  (we  use 
his  name  simply  as  e'ivino;  concreteness  to  ortho- 
Hements.  dox  i^cw  England  Congregationalism.)  agrees  with 

the  Romanists  as  to  the  sole  ohject  of  supreme  worship,  but 
he  does  not  so  agree  with  his  Socinian  Kew  England  contempo- 
raries, Protestant,  par  excellence^  as  these  Socinians  assume  to 
be.  Hence  he  is  generically  of  the  same  religion  with  the  Ro- 
manists, and  would  concede  a  fraternal  affinity  with  Pascal,  or 
Fenelon,  which  he  could  not  with  any  Unitarian,  however 
lovely  in  his  personal  character.  We  are  not  so  much  alarmed 
therefore,  as  some  men  pretend  to  be  with  mere  coincidence 
with  elements  existing  in  the  Romish  Church.  If  anything  in 
our  Protestant  doctrines  or  usages  be,  indeed,  a  perpetuation 
of  what  is  unscriptu?^al  in  the  Romish  system,  it  should  be 
weeded  out ;  but  it  does  not  follow,  that  because  a  thing  is  in 
Rome,  it  is  of  Rome.  Once  a  pure  Church  of  Christ,  the 
Church  of  Rome  never  lost  all  of  her  original  endowments. 
We  feel  that  Dr.  Shedd  is  altogether  too  conscientious  and 
noble  a  man  to  attempt  to  excite  this  kind  of  anti-Romisli 
odium  as  a  cheap  way  of  dispensing  with  argument.  ]S"ever- 
theless,  so  far  as  the  authority  of  his  name  will  carry  weight 
with  it,  he  has  helped,  by  the  sentences  he  has  written,  to  in- 
crease the  weight  of  unjust  reproach  which  has  been  heaped 
upon  our  Church  for  centuries,  for  no  other  reason  than  for  un- 
swerving iidelity  to  what  she  is  persuaded  is  the  truth  of  God. 
Our  Church  does  hold,  as  Dr.  Shedd  also  does,  without  change, 
the  great  Trinitarian  and  Christological  doctrines  which  were 
preserved  in  their  purity  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  our 
Church  does  not  hold  a  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  coincident 
with  that  of  Rome,  derived  from  it,  or  sustained  by  the  same 
kind  of  evidence,  or  open  to  the  same  invincible  objections, 
scriptural,  historical  and  practical.  Dr.  Shedd  says:  ''This 
doctrine  of  Consubstantiation  does  not  differ  in  kind  from  the 
Popish  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation."  We  need  not  stop 
here  to  repeat  that  our  Church  does  not  hold,  and  never  did 


ROMANIZING   ELEMENTS.  343 

hold  the  doctrine  of  "  Consubstantiation."  Be  that  as  it  may, 
and  waiving  any  further  consideration  of  it  for  tlie  present,  we 
cannot  agree  with  Dr.  Shedd,  that  in  the  sense  in  which  he 
seems  to  employ  the  words,  our  doctrine  "  does  not  differ  in 
kind  from  the  Popish  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation."  So  far 
we  concede  that  there  is  an  agreement  in  kind^  that  over 
against  a  merely  ideal  presence  of  Christ,  wrought  by  the  hu- 
man mind  in  its  memory,  or  by  its  faith,  our  Church  in  common 
with  both  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches,  does  hold  to  a 
true  presence  of  the  whole  Christ,  the  factor  of  which  is  not  our 
mind,  but  his  own  divine  person.  We  do  not  think  him  into 
the  Supper,  but  he  is  verily  and  indeed  there.  Faith  does  not 
put  him  there,  but  finds  him  there.  So  profoundly  was  Luther 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  holding  to  a  presence  which 
did  not  play  and  fluctuate  with  the  emotions  and  infirmities  of 
man,  but  which  rested  on  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  on  which  hangs  the  all-sufficiency  of  his  work  and 
promise  —  that  deeply  as  he  felt,  and  triumphantly  as  he  com- 
bated the  Romish  error  of  Transubstantiation,  he  nevertheless 
declared  that  this  error  was  not  so  radical  as  that  of  Zwingli 
(whose  view  Calvin  himself  stigmatized  as  '^profane,)  and  said, 
that  if  he  must  be  driven  to  one  extreme  or  the  other,  he  would 
rather,  with  the  Pope,  have  Christ's  true  body  without  the 
bread,  than  with  Zwingli  have  the  true  bread  without  the  true 
body.  Surely,  that  is  a  glorious  error,  if  error  it  be,  which 
springs  from  trusting  too  far,  too  implicitly,  in  too  child-like  a 
way  in  the  simple  words  of  our  adorable  Lord  I  If  the  world 
divides  on  his  utterances,  we  will  err,  if  we  err,  with  those  who, 
fettered  l»y  the  word,  bring  every  thought  into  captivity  to  the 
obedience  of  Christ.  It  was  not  the  power  of  education,  not 
the  influence  of  Romanistic  leaven,  but  the  might  of  the  Word 
of  God,  interpreted  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  by  the  very 
laws  by  which  Luther  was  controlled  in  reaching  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith,  and  every  other  cardinal  do<ttrine,  it 
was  this,  and  this  only,  which  fixed  his  conviction.  After  the 
lapse  of  centuries,  whose  thoughts  in  this  sphere  we  have 
striven  to  weigh,  whether  for,  or  against,  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church,  with  everything  in  the  character  of  our  times  and  of 


344  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

our  land  unfavorable  to  a  community  in  the  faith  of  our  fathers, 
after  a  conscientious,  prayerful  examination  of  the  whole 
ground,  we  confess,  and  if  need  were,  through  shame  and  suf- 
fering);, God  helping  us,  would  continue  to  confess,  our  profound 
conviction  that  this  doctrine  which  Dr.  Shedd  considers  a  relic 
of  Romanism  is  Scriptural  to  its  core,  and  that  no  process  can 
dislodge  it,  which  will  not,  carried  logically  through,  bring  the 
whole  temple  of  Evangelical  truth  to  the  ground.  Xo  man  can 
defend  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  assail  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  on  the  same  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion. 

JSTevertheless,  he  wdio  is  persuaded  that  the  Komish  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation  is  unseriptural,  is  not  thereb}^  in  the  re- 
motest degree  logically  arrayed  against  the  Scriptural  character 
of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  They  are  not,  in  such  sense,  of 
one  kind  as  to  Vv^arrant  this  species  of  suspicion.  They  are  the 
results  of  greatl}'  different  modes  of  interpreting  Scripture, 
Romanism  and  Zwinglianism,  being  of  one  kind  in  this,  that 
they  depart  from  the  letter  of  God's  Word,  interpreted  by  just 
rules  of  lano-uao'e.  The  Lutheran  and  Romish  views  differ 
most  vitally  in  their  internal  character  and  position,  the  one 
taking  its  harmonious  place  in  Evangelical  doctrine,  the  other 
marring  its  grace  and  moral  consistency  ;  Romanism  and 
Zwinglianism  being  of  one  kind  in  this,  that  both,  in  different 
ways,  exhibit  dogmatic  superficiality  and  inconsequence.  The 
Lutheran  and  Romish  views  are  differently  related  to  the  doc- 
trinal history  of  the  Church,  the  one  having  its  witnesses  in 
the  earliest  and  purest  ages,  the  other  being  unknown  to  the 
ancient  Church  and  generated  in  its  decline;  Romanism  and 
Zwincrlianism  here  beino;  of  one  kind,  in  that  both  are  unhis- 
torical.  The  Lutheran  and  Romish  views  differ  in  their  devo- 
tional and  practical  working ;  Romanism  and  Zwinglianism 
here  being  of  one  kind,  in  that  both  generate  the  common 
result  of  a  feeble  faith  —  the  one,  indeed,  by  reaction,  the  otlier 
by  development.  Nothing  could  be  more  remote  from  a  just 
representation  of  the  fact  than  the  charge  that,  in  any  unde- 
sirable sense,  the  Romish  and  Lutheran  views  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  are  one  in  kind. 


THE   CONFESSIONS   OF  TUE   CHURCHES.        345 

Dr.  Shedd,  after  leaving  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its 
Apology,  enumerates  the  "series  of  symbolical  writings," 
"  which  constitute  a  part  of  Lutheran  Symbolism,"  and  men- 
tions—  1.    The    Confcssio   Saxonica ;  and,    2.    The    „„  ^   ,    . 

•^  ^^        n.  The  Confessions 

Confcssio  Wilrtcmberi/ica.  Neither  of  these  Confes-  of  ti.o  Luti.L-ra.i 
8ions  can  be  regarded  as  a  proper  part  of  the  sym-  ;;;;:;^:;church'I 
bolical  books  of  our  Clmrch.  They  were  for  tem- 
porary ends,  and  were  confined  in  their  official  recognition  to  a 
very  small  part  of  the  Church.  If  Dr.  Shedd  is  correct  in  sup- 
posing that  the  altered  Confession  of  Melanchthon  of  15-40  is 
Pelagianizing  in  regard  to  Regeneration,  and  more  or  less  Cal- 
vinistic  in  regard  to  the  Sacraments,  it  is  not  very  likely  that 
the  Saxon  Confession  of  1551,  from  the  same  hand,  would  be 
received  by  the  Lutheran  Church  without  suspicion ;  and 
neither  the  claim  made  for  it  in  its  title,  nor  Dr.  Shedd's  en- 
dorsement of  that  claim,  would  completely  overcome  the  innate 
improbability  of  its  being  without  reservation  "  a  repetition  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession." 

The  AVlirtemberg  Confession  of  Brentius,  which  was  wantten 
before  Melanchthon's,  is  sound  enough,  but  never  has  obtained 
any  general  recognition.  There  are  several  writings  which 
could  have  been  classed  among  our  symbols  with  more  propriety 
than  those  mentioned  by  Dr.  Shedd,  as,  for  example,  Luther's 
Confession  of  Faith,  (1528  ;)  the  Articles  of  Visitation,  (1592,) 
wdiich  are  still  authoritative  in  Saxony  —  often  confounded  in 
this  country  with  the  earlier  Saxon  Articles  of  Visitation, 
(1527  ;)  and  the  Consensus  Repetitiis  of  1664.  l^ot  one  of  them, 
however,  belongs  to  the  Confessional  writings  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church. 

Dr.  Shedd's  account  of  the  Formula  Concordise  strikes  us  as 
peculiarly  unfortunate.  'Eo  hint  is  given  of  the  occasion  for 
the  Confession,  of  the  urgent  necessities  out  of  which  it  arose, 
of  the  earnest  desire  for  peace  and  unity  which  prompted  its 
formation,  of  the  patient  labors  running  over  many  years,  in 
which  its  foundations  were  laid,  and  of  its  masterly  completion 
and  the  enthusiastic  spontaneousness  of  its  reception.  The 
reader  mio:ht  imao-ine  from  Dr.  Shedd's  statements  that  this 
book  was  an  effect  without  any  just  cause.     lie  says  :  "  It  was 


346  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

drawn  up  by  Andrese  and  others  in  1577."  The  truth  i$,  that 
the  labors  of  1577,  in  which  Chemnitz  was  a  greater  worker 
than  Andreae,  were  merely  the  finishing  labors  of  years  — 
labors  whose  results  were  embodied  in  the  Torgau  Book.  The 
work  of  1577  was,  in  reality,  that  of  thorough  revision.  Dr. 
Sliedd  says  the  Formula  Concordipe  was  "  presented  to  the  Im- 
perial Diet."  We  are  at  a  loss  to  guess  out  of  what  miscon- 
ception this  statement  could  have  originated,  ^ot  only  is 
there  no  historical  voucher  for  any  such  statement,  but  the 
thing  itself,  to  any  one  who  will  recall  the  history  of  the  times, 
will  be  seen  at  once  to  be  absolutely  impossible ;  and  yet,  Dr. 
Shedd,  as  if  to  show  that  there  are  degrees  in  the  absolute, 
adds  that  this  Imperial  Diet  "  sought  to  secure  its  adoption  by 
the  Lutheran  Church."  All  this  is  purely  aerial.  There  was 
no  such  Diet,  no  such  presentation,  and  no  such  recommenda- 
tion. Dr.  Shedd's  pen  is  the  magician's  wand  which  has  con- 
jured up  the  whole.  This  is  a  serious  charge  to  bring  against 
so  eminent  a  scholar ;  but,  feeling  the  full  responsibility 
involved  in  it,  truth  compels  us  to  make  it. 

Dr.  Shedd,  still  in  his  aerial  movement,  says  of  this  empirical 
Imperial  Diet :  "In  this  they  were  unsuccessful."  Dropping 
any  consideration  of  the  lack  of  success  of  this  hypothetical 

Keception  of  I^i^^j  ^^  ^^^  phautasmagorial  Decrees,  we  might  say 
the  Formula  Coil-  that  uo  official  cftort  from  any  source  has  ever  been 
made  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  Con- 
cordise  by  the  entire  Lutheran  Church.  The  great  German 
princes  and  theologians  to  whom  the  Formula  owed  its  exist- 
ence made  no  effort  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  other  lands,  with  the  solitary  exception  of  Denmark. 
Xevertheless,  by  its  own  internal  merits  this  Formula  secured 
from  the  first  a  reception  by  an  immense  majority  of  the  Lu- 
theran Churches,  won  its  way  against  the  deadliest  opposition, 
was  finally  received,  almost  without  exception,  where  it  was  at 
first  rejected,  has  been  acknowledged  virtually  in  the  few  cases 
in  which  it  has  not  been  acknowledged  oflicially,  and  is  received 
now  in  almost  every  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  w^hich 
her  proper  doctrinal  life  has  not  been  disturbed  by  rationalistic 
or  pseudo-unionistic  principles.      It  was  originally  signed  by 


RECEPTION  OF  THE  FORMULA    CONCORDIJE.     347 

three  Electors,  three  Dukes  and  Princes,  twenty-four  Counts 
four  Barons,  thirty-five  imperial  cities,  in  all  by  eighty-six 
States  of  the  Empire,  and  by  eight  thousand  ministers  of  the 
Gospel.  In  Denmark,  where  it  was  received  by  the  King  with 
brutal  violence,  and  its  introduction  prohibited  under  penalty 
of  death,  it  has  long  since  been  accepted,  in  fact,  if  not  in  form, 
as  a  Symbol."^  In  Holstein  it  was  formally  adopted  in  1647. 
In  Sweden,  because  of  the  powerful  influences  tending  to  the 
restoration  of  Popery  under  the  king,  it  could  not  at  first 
secure  an  entrance ;  but  in  1593,  at  the  Council  of  Upsala,  the 
States  determined  upon  its  subscription,  and  its  authority  as  a 
Symbol  was  confirmed  by  later  solemn  acts.  In  Pomerania 
and  Livonia  it  obtained  symbolical  authority.  In  Hungary  it 
was  approved  in  1593,  and  formally  adopted  in  1597.  In 
France,  Henry  of  E'avarre  desired  to  form  a  league  with  the 
Lutherans  against  the  Catholics,  hut  the  acceptance  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  was  made  a  condition  on  the  part  of  the 
Evangelical  States,  and  the  negotiations  were  broken  oft'. 
"  The  symbolical  authority  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  for  the 
Lutheran  Church,  as  such,"  says  Kollner,  "can  hardly  be 
doubted.  By  far  the  larger  part  of  those  who  regarded  them- 
selves as  belonging  to  the  Lutheran  Church  received  it  as  their 
Symbol.  And  as,  to  use  the  words  of  the  Elector  Augustus, 
we  have  no  Pope  among  us,  can  there  be  any  other  mode  of 
sanctioning  a  Symbol  than  by  a  majority  ?  To  this  is  to  be 
added,  and  should  be  especially  noted,  that  a  larger  part  of  those 
who  did  not  receive  it,  objected  to  doing  so,  not  on  doctrinal 
grounds,  but  partly  for  political  reasons,  freely  or  compulsorily, 
as  the  case  might  be,  partly  out  of  attachment  to  Melanchthon, 
partly  out  of  a  morbid  vanity,  because  they  had  not  been  in- 
vited early  enough  to  take  part  in  framing  the  Concordia,  and 
had  consequently  not  participated  in  it  —  and  partly  because, 
in  one  land,  those  who  had  the  most  influence  were  Calvinistic- 
ally  inclined,  although  a  large  majority  of  the  clergy  approved 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Formula.  The  inference,  therefore,  is 
by  no  means  to  be  made  that  there  was  a  deviation  in  doctrine, 
because  there  was  not  an  acceptance  of  the  Formula.'* 

*  Kollner,  p.  575. 


Its    char.ict 
and  contents. 


•348  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  that  Dr.  Shedd  hardly  does 
justice  to  the  historical  dignity  of  this  great  Confession,  when 
he  says :  "  It  was  a  polemic  document,  constructed 
by  that  portion  of  the  Lutheran  Church  that  was 
•hostile  to  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  the  Sacraments."  Cer- 
tainly, although  the  Formula  is  polemic  in  meeting  error,  its 
main  end  is  irenical,  and  its  general  tone  exceedingly  moder- 
ate. When  Dr.  Shedd  leaves  the  reader  to  imagine  that  this 
Confession  w^as  not  only,  as  it  would  seem  from  his  representa- 
tion mainly,  but  was  exclusively  directed  against  the  Calvin- 
istic theory  of  the  Sacraments,  he  does  injustice  to  the  Form- 
ula and  to  the  reader.  Of  the  twelve  Articles,  but  one  is  de- 
voted to  either  of  the  Sacraments,  and  in  the  others  there  is 
much  in  which  true  Calvinists  would  feel  a  deep  sympathy  — 
much  that  nobly  defends  great  points  of  doctrine  common  to 
the  whole  Evangelical  faith.  In  the  first  Article,  which  treats 
of  Original  Sin  —  in  the  second,  of  the  Freedom  of  the  Will  — 
in  the  third,  of  Justification  —  in  the  fourth,  of  Good  Works  — 
in  the  fifth,  of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  —  in  the  sixth,  of  the 
third  use  of  the  Law,  the  most  rigid  Calvinist  would  be  forced 
to  confess  that  there  is  a  noble  and  Scriptural  presentation  of 
those  great  doctrines.  They  defend  what  all  pure  Christendom 
is  interested  in  defending.  In  many  of  the  antitheses  of  the 
twelfth  Article  a  Calvinist  would  lieartil^^  j<^^i"i  as  he  would  in 
the  masterly  discussion  of  the  adiaphora  in  Article  tenth.  In 
Article  eleventh,  of  the  eternal  foreknowledge  and  election  of 
God,  the  Calvinist  would  find  the  distinctive  doctrine  of  Calvin 
rejected,  but  he  could  not  but  be  pleased  with  the  profound 
reverence  and  exquisite  skill  with  which  the  doctrine  is  dis- 
cussed, and  by  which  it  is  redeemed  from  the  extreme  of  Cal- 
vinism without  running  into  the  opposite  and  far  more  danger- 
ous one  of  rdagianism,  or  of  low  Arminianism.  In  the 
Articles,  seventh  and  eighth,  a  Calvinist  might  discover  much 
in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Su[)per  and  the  Person  of  Christ, in  which 
he  might  not  concur;  and  in  Article  ninth,  on  the  Descent  of 
Christ  into  Hell,  he  would  find  a  view  very  difierent  from 
Calvin's,  which  Calvinists  themselves  now  almost  universally 
reject.     Nevertheless,  he  would  discover  in  such  a  perusal,  as 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF   UBIQUITY.  349 

he  certainly  would  not  from  Dr.  Shcdd's  account,  that  this 
supposed  polemic  document,  originating  in  opposition  to  tlie 
Calvinistic  theory  of  the  Sacraments,  really  defends  much  more 
than  it  attacks  that  which  Calvinists  love. 

Dr.  Shedd  says  :  ''  Tt  carries  out  the  doctrine  of  Consuhstan- 
tiation'' (which  our  Church  never  held)"  into  a  technical  state- 
ment," (every  part  of  which  had  long  before  been  ^,,,^  i,octni.o 
made.)  "  Teaching  the  ubicpiity  of  Christ's  body,"  of  i'i'ia"ify- 
says  Dr.  Shedd,  though  the  Formula  itself  never  speaks  of  the 
"ubiquity"  of  Christ's  body.  "Ubiquity"  was  a  term  in- 
vented by  those  who  wished  to  fix  upon  our  Church  the  impu- 
tation of  teaching  a  local  omnipresence  or  infinite  extension  of 
the  body  of  Christ  —  errors  which  the  Formula,  and  our 
whole  Church  with  it,  reject  in  the  strongest  terms.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Formula  is  that  the  body  of  Christ  has  no  in- 
trinsic or  essential  omnipresence  as  the  divinity  has  ;  that  after 
its  own  intrinsic  manner,  and  in  virtue  of  its  own  essential 
qualities,  it  has  a  determinate  presence,  and  in  that  mode  of 
presence  is  not  upon  earth  ;  but  that,  after  another  mode, 
supernatural,  illocal,  incomprehensible,  and  yet  real,  it  is 
rendered  present,  "  where  Christ  will,"  through  the  divine 
nature,  which  has  I'cceived  it  into  personal  union. 

If  the  question  were  asked :  How  is  God  omnipresent  ? 
How  can  the  undivided  totality  of  His  substance  be  in  each 
part  of  the  universe  ?  How  can  it  be  all  in  heaven  and  all 
on  earth,  and  all  on  earth  without  ceasing  in  any  measure  to 
be  all  in  heaven,  and  without  motion  or  extension,  without 
multiplication  of  presences,  and  so  that  there  is  no  more  of 
God  in  the  whole  universe  than  there  is  in  each  point  of  it  ? 
If  such  a  question  were  asked  Dr.  Shedd,  we  presume  that, 
bowing  before  the  inscrutable  mystery,  he  would  reply  :  God  is 
present  after  the  manner  of  an  infinite  Spirit  — -a  manner  most 
real,  but  utterly  incomprehensible  to  us.  Grant,  then,  that 
this  infinite  Spirit  has  taken  to  itself  a  human  nature,  as  an  in- 
separable element  of  its  person,  the  result  is  inevitable. 
Where  the  divine  is,  the  human  must  be.  The  })rimary  and 
very  lowest  element  of  a  personal  union  is  the  co-prosence  of 
the   parts.     To  say  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  is  per- 


350  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Bonally  present  without  his  humanity,  is  to  deny  that  this 
humanity  is  a  part  of  that  personality,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  falls  to  the  dust :  Christ  becomes  no  more  than  the 
organ  of  a  special  revelation  of  Deity :  His  humanity  is  no 
more  properly  one  person  with  God  than  the  burning  bush  was 
one  person  with  Jehovah.  Accepting  the  doctrine  of  a  real  incar- 
nation, the  omnipresence  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  not  in 
itself,  in  which  respect  its  presence  is  determinate,  but  through 
the  divine,  is  a  necessary  result  and  involves  no  new  mystery. 
If  that  whole  Godhead  which  dwells   in  Christ's  body  can, 
without  motion,  without  leaving  heaven,  or  extending  itself, 
be  present  with  us  on  earth,  then  can  it  render  present  with  us, 
without  motion  or  extension,  that  other  nature  which  is  one 
person  with  it.     What  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  has  of 
itself,  his  human  nature  has  through  the  divine,  which  has 
taken  it  to  be  one  person  with  itself.     This  is  one  result  of 
that  doctrine  of  the  Communicatio  idiomatum^  of  which,  as  we 
shall  see  in  a  moment.  Dr.  Shedd  offers  so  extremely  inaccurate 
a  definition.     If  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  is  asked,  how  can 
Christ's  human  nature  be  present  with  us?  he  can  reply:  After 
the  manner  in  which  an  infinite  Spirit  renders  present  a  human 
nature,  which  it  has  taken  to  be  an  inseparable  constituent  of 
its  own  person,  a  manner  most  real,  but  utterly  incomprehen- 
sible to  us.     This  is  the  doctrine  at  which  Dr.  Shedd  levels,  as 
has  often  been  done  before  him,  the  term  Ubiquity.     It  was 
the  whole  Christ  —  the  man  as  well  as  the  God —  who  said  : 
"-  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."     It  was  the  icholc  Christ  who 
said:  "  Lo  1  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."      And    what   the  whole   Christ   promised,   the  whole 
Christ  will  perform.     On  any  other  theory,  the  Christian  on 
earth  has  no  more  a  personal  Christ  with  him  than  the  Patri- 
archs had  ;  the  New  Dispensation  has  made  no  advance  on  the 
Old ;  the  divine  nature,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  was 
just  as  much  on  earth  then  as  he  is  now  ;  and  all  the  light, 
peace  and  joy,   which  a  sense  of  tlie  actual  nearness,  tender 
guardianship,  and  personal  sympathy  of  an  incarnate  Christ 
bheds  upon  the  soul,  vanish  in  a  haze  of  hyperboles,  a  miserable 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF   UBIQUITY.  351 

twiliscLt  of  figures  of  speech,  and  the  vigorous  and  soul-sus- 
taining objectivity  of  Faith  faints  into  a  mere  sentinientalisni. 
Cold  speculation  has  taken  our  Lord  out  of  the  world  he 
redeemed,  and  has  made  heaven,  not  his  throne,  but  a  great 
sepulchre,  with  a  stone  rolled  against  its  portal. 

Dr.  Shedd  says,  moreover,  in  his  extremely  compact  state- 
ment of  the  doctrinal  essence  of  the  Formula,  of  which  our 
readers,  with  the  close  of  this  sentence,  will  have  every  word, 
that  it  teaches  ''the  communicatio  idiomatum^ or  the  presence  of 
the  divine  nature  of  Christ  in  the  sacramental  elements."  We 
cannot  refrain  from  expressing  our  amazement  that  the  writer 
of  a  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  should  give  such  a  delini- 
tionof  so  familiar  a  term.  We  are  forced  almost  to  the  conclu- 
sion —  and  it  is  the  mildest  one  we  can  make  for  Dr.  Shedd  — 
that  he  has  ventured  to  give  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  our 
Formula,  without  having  read  it  with  sufficient  care  to  form  a 
correct  judgment  as  to  the  meaning  of  its  most  important 
terms. 

The  Doctor  closes  this  paragraph  with  these  words,  which 
certainly  exhibit  no  very  deep  insight  into  the  internal  history 
of  our  Church  :  ''  The  Lutheran  Church  is  still  divided  upon 
this  Symbol.  The  so-called  High  Lutherans  insist  that  the 
Formula  Concordise  is  the  scientific  completion  of  the  preced- 
ing Lutheran  Symbolism,"  (Dr.  Shedd  seems  to  us  constantly 
to  use  the  w^ord  "  Symbolism  "  inaccui-ately  ;)  "  while  the  mod- 
erate party  are  content  to  stand  by  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  Apology,  and  the  Smalcald  Articles."  We  can  assure  Dr. 
Shedd,  if  we  know  anything  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  that  it  is 
not  to  be  classified  in  this  way.  A  man  may  hold  very  iirnily, 
that  the  Formula  is  the  scientific  completion  of  the  system  of 
the  earlier  Symbols,  and  may  reject  it  and  them,  or  receive 
them  with  a  reservation  ;  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  may  be 
satisfied  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  alone,  but  receiving  it 
in  good  faith,  will  be  as  high  a  Lutheran  as  Dr.  Shedd  would 
like  to  see.  The  real  point  of  classification  as  to  the  relation 
of  nominal  Lutherans  to  the  Confession  seems  to  us  to  be 
mainly  this  :  Evangelical  Lutherans,  wdio  are  such  in  the  his- 
torical sense,  heartily  receive  as  Scriptural  statements  of  doe- 


352  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

trine,  the  Confessions  of  the  Church  in  their  proper  meaning  as 
reached  hy  the  laws  of  language  ;  while  others  who  wear  the 
name,  claim  the  right,  in  varying  degrees  of  practical  latitude, 
to  set  aside,  at  their  pleasure,  part  of  these  doctrines.  This  is 
the  vital  issue,  and  its  character  is  substantially  the  same, 
whether  a  few  of  the  Symbols  or  all  of  them  are  in  question. 
AVe  might  add  that,  under  this  latitudinarian  claim,  there 
have  actually  been  sheltered  in  the  Lutheran  Church  such  soul- 
destroying  errors  as  Socinianism  and  ITniversalism,  and  that, 
where  the  tendency  has  not  run  into  the  grosser  heresies,  the 
pervading  characteristic  of  those  who  represent  its  extremes  is 
that  of  laxity  in  doctrine,  government,  and  discipline.  THere 
is  yet  a  third  class,  who,  largely  revealing  practically  the  spirit 
of  a  genuine  Lutheranism,  and  more  or  less  sympathizing  with 
its  controverted  doctrines,  yet,  without  a  positive  acceptance 
of  them,  confess  that  the  logic  of  the  position  is  with  historical 
Lutheranism,  and  are  never  consciously  unjust  to  it.  This 
class  are  regarded  with  aifection  and  respect  by  the  thoroughly 
conservative  part  of  the  Church,  and  are  bitterlj^  assailed,  or 
noisily  claimed  by  the  fanatical  element,  as  the  anger  produced 
by  their  moderation,  or  the  hope  inspired  by  their  apparent 
neutrality,  predominates. 

Dr.  Shedd,  after  disposing  of  the  Lutheran  Confession  in 
what,  our  readers  will  have  seen,  we  do  not  consider  a  very 
^  ,  .  . ,.  ,,      satisfactory  manner,  next  discusses  the  "  Reformed 
fcssiDus.  (Calvinistic)  Confessions."      In  this  whole  section 

he  assumes  the  identity  of  the  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  sys- 
tems, in  which  we  are  forced  to  regard  him  as  mistaken.  In 
the  heart  of  doctrine  and  tendency,  pure  Calvinism  is  often 
more  Lutheranizing  than  Zwinglianizing,  for  Zwingli  w^as 
largely  Pelagian.  Dr.  Shedd  seems  to  recognize  nothing  of  the 
mediating  tendency  of  the  school  of  Bucer,  nor  of  the  Melanch- 
thonian  type  of  doctrinal  statement ;  but  with  a  classification 
which  seems  too  sweeping  and  inaccurate,  considers  the  Tetra- 
politan,  wliich  was  prepared  several  years  before  Calvin  was 
known  as  a  theologian,  (and  which  seems  to  be  the  first  confes- 
sional statement  of  that  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which 
now  bears   Calvin's  name,)  the  Fidci  Ratio  of  Zwingli,   the 


CALVINISTIC  CONFESSIONS.  353 

Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  Canons  of  Dort  and  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  all  as  belonging  to  the  same 
class  of  Confessions.  Certainly,  if  the  words  Reformed  and 
Calvinistic  are  synonyms,  as  Dr.  Shedd  makes  them,  this  group- 
ing is  open  to  very  serious  objections.  When  Dr.  Shedd 
reaches  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  he  bestows  so  little  care 
upon  the  arrangement  of  his  facts,  that  the  incautious  reader 
might  be  led  into  very  serious  mistakes.  He  might  suppose, 
for  instance,  that  Frederick  the  First  was  a  successor  of  John 
Casirair.  He  is  told,  in  express  terms,  that  Louis  the  Sixth 
brought  the  Palatinate  under  the  Formula  Concordise  in  1576, 
(four  years  before  it  was  published,)  and  if  he  is  not  on  his 
guard,  will  be  sure  to  imagine  that  the  troubles  which  followed 
the  mutations  of  1576,  and  the  subsequent  ones  under  John 
Casimir,  (1583-1592,)  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  in  1562.  Dr.  Shedd  continues  to  call  the  Electors 
(we  know  not  why)  "  Crown  Princes,"  and  in  general  seems  to 
stumble  from  the  moment  he  gets  on  German  ground.  What 
will  intelligent  preachers  and  laymen  in  the  German  Reformed 
Church  think,  for  instance,  of  this  eulogy  with  which  the 
notice  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  closes :  "  In  doctrine,  it 
teaches  justification  with  the  Lutheran  glow  and  vitality,  pre- 
destination and  election  with  Calvinistic  firmness  and  self-con- 
sistency, and  the  Zwinglian  theory  of  the  Sacraments  with  de- 
cision, ....  and  is  regarded  with  great  favor  by  the 
High  Lutheran  party  of  the  present  day."  We  will  not  un- 
dertake to  speak  for  our  German  Reformed  friends,  except  to 
say,  that  this  is  not  the  sort  of  thing  they  talked,  at  their  Ter- 
centenary, and  put  into  their  handsome  volume.  As  to  "  the 
High  Lutherans  of  the  present  day,"  if  we  are  of  them,  as  we 
are  sometimes  charged  with  being.  Dr.  Shedd  is  right :  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  is  regarded  by  them  with  great  fiivor  — 
all  except  its  doctrines.  It  is  a  neat  thing  —  a  very  neat  thing 
— the  mildest,  most  winning  piece  of  Calvinism  of  which  we 
know.  One-half  of  it  is  Lutheran,  and  this  we  like  very  much, 
and  the  solitary  improvement  we  would  suggest  in  it  would  be 
to  make  the  other  half  of  it  Lutheran,  too.  With  this  slight 
reservation,  on  this  very  delicate  point,  the  High  Lutherans 

23 


354  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

are  rather  fond  of  it  than  otherwise,  to  the  best  of  their  knowl- 
edge and  belief. 

We  have  not  proposed  to  ourselves  a  general  review  of  Dr. 
Shedd's  book,  but  simply  to  look  at  it  with  reference  to  its 
statements  in  regard  to  our  own  Church.  Nevertheless,  we 
cannot  avoid  an  allusion  to  what,  strikes  us  an  extreme  state- 
ment in  apparent  conflict  with  sound  Theology.  It  is  in  his 
declaration  that  "  sin  is  in  the  strictest  sense  a  creature."  "  The 
Sin  not  a  crea-  Original  act  of  self-will  is  strictly  creative  from 
ture.  nothing."     Dr.  Shedd  here  seems  to  labor  to  show 

that  he  is  not  speaking  in  a  popular  and  rhetorical  way,  but 
that  over  against  such  a  style  of  language,  he  wishes  to  be 
understood  rigidly  —  sin  is  a  creature  —  but  God  is  not  its 
creator.  Man  is  as  really  and  as  strictly  a  creator  as  God  is  — 
and  sin  is  his  creature.  Such  language,  if  pressed,  seems  in- 
consistent with  the  nature  of  God,  of  man,  of  sin,  and  of 
creature.  It  denies  that  God  is  the  alone  Creator  of  all  things  ; 
it  maintains,  almost  after  a  Manichean  style,  that  evil  is  a 
primal  principle  and  that  a  man  is  the  Ahriman  of  it  ;  it 
makes  sin  an  objective  reality,  not  the  condition  or  act  of  a 
subject,  and  elevates  the  mutilation  and  disease  of  the  creature 
to  a  rank  in  being  with  the  creature  itself.  oSTo  more  than  the 
surgeon  creates  by  cutting  off  the  leg  of  a  man,  does  man  create 
sin  by  a  self-originated  destruction  of  his  original  righteousness, 
on  which  follows  that  inordinate  state  of  the  natural  reason 
and  appetites  which  theologians  call  concupiscence.  The 
impulse  to  theft,  to  lying,  to  impurity,  is  not  a  substance, 
not  a  creature,  but  is  the  result  of  inordinate  desire  in  which 
self-love  now  unchecked  by  original  righteousness  and  kindled 
by  the  fomes  of  the  self-corrupted  will,  reveals  itself.  It  is 
not  a  creature,  but  a  moral  phenomenon  of  the  creature  — 
desire  nnd  purpose  are  not  creatures,  but  exercises  of  the 
faculties  of  the  creature.  If  sin  be  strictly  a  creature,  it 
must  be  the  creature  of  God,  and  this  part  of  Dr.  Shedd's 
theory  really  would  make  God  the  author  of  sin,  an  inference, 
which,  we  are  sure,  no  one  could  more  earnestly  resist  than 
himself.  The  finite  will  can  corrupt  the  creatures,  but  it 
cannot  add  to  them. 


IX. 

THE  SPECIFIC  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  CONSERVATIVE 
REFORMATION: 

ORIGINAL  SIN. 

(AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  ART.  II.) 


THE  foundation  of  the  second  Article  of  the  Augshurg 
Confession,  which  treats  of  Original  Sin,  was  laid  in 
the  Articles  of  the  Colloquy  at  Marburg.  This  colloquy  took 
place  October  3d,  1529,  and  was  designed  to  bring  about,  if 
possible,  an  agreement  between  Luther  and  Zwingli,       docu 


mentiry 

of     the 

second  Article  of 


and  their  adherents.  Fifteen  Articles  were  drawn  ^^''''''  "^  '^' 
up  by  Luther.  Fourteen  of  these  were  adopted  the A.confession. 
entire  by  both  parties,  and  the  fifteenth  was  received  with 
the  exception  of  one  point,  to  which  the  Zwinglians  objected. 
In  these  fifteen  Articles  are  the  roots  of  the  Augs-  j  ^^^j^,^^  ^^ 
burs:  Confession.     The  fourth  Article  was  on  Orig-  the  couoquy  at 

®  Marburg. 

inal  Sin,  and  is  as  follows : 

"  In  the  fourth  place,  we  believe  that  original  sin  is  from 
Adam,  inborn  and  inherited  to  us,  and  is  a  sin  of  such  kind 
that  it  condemns  all  men,  and  if  Jesus  Christ  had  not  come  to 
our  help,  by  his  death  and  life,  we  must  have  died  therein 
eternally,  and  could  not  have  come  to  God's  kingdom  and 
blessedness."  * 

*  J.  J.  MuUer's  Historie,  306.  Corpus.  Reform,  xxvi.  123.  Compared  with 
Hospiuian  His.  Sacr.  ii.  77.  On  the  whole  Colloquy,  cf.  :  Corp.  Reform,  i.  Nos. 
631-642.  Seckendorf.  Hist.  Luth.  ii.  139.  Luther's  Werke  :  Walch  xvii.  2361, 
2374,  xxiii.  6,  35.  Jena  :  iv.  469.  Leipz.  xix.  530  Erlangen  :  Ixv.  88.  Zimmer- 
mann:  Ref.  Schr.  M.  L.  iii.  426.  Luther's  Briefe  (De  Wette,  iii.  508.)  Zwingli's 
Werke  (ZUrich,  1830.) :  Germ.  Vol.  ii.  P.  iii.  44-58.  Lat.  iv.  173-204.  Historia  v.  d. 
Augsburg  Confess.  (Chemnitz,  Selneccer,  Kirchnerj  Leipz.  1584.  Fol.  92-107. 
Do.   Lat.    1585.   113-133.    Sculteti  Annal.   ad  ann.    1529.    199.  Chytrsei  :   Histor. 

356 


356 


CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION: 


In  an  ampler  form  the  same  doctrine  presents  itself  in  the 

Schwahach  Articles.     These  seventeen  Articles  are  also  from 

the  hand  of  Luther.     They  are  largely  an  elaboration  of  the 

Marburg  Articles,  and  are  the  direct  groundwork  of  the  doctri- 

„,  „ .       nal  articles  of  the  Auo;sburoj  Confession.  The  fourth 

II.  Tlie  Schwa-  o  o 

bad.  Articles.  Article  runs  thus  :  "  That  original  sm  is  a  true,  real 
sin,  and  not  merely  a  weakness  or  defect,  but  such  a  sin  as 
would  condemn  all  men  who  spring  from  Adam,  and  would 
separate  us  from  God  forever,  if  Jesus  Christ  had  not  interceded 
for  us,  and  taken  upon  himself  this  sin,  with  all  other  sine 
which  follow  therefrom,  and  by  his  suffering  made  satisfaction 
tlierefor,  and  thus  utterly  taken  them  away,  and  blotted  them 
out  in  himself,  as  in  Psalm  li.  and  Rom.  v.  is  clearly  written 
of  this  sin."  "^ 
III.  The  Article  j^^  thc  Latlu  and  German  texts  of  the  earliest 
authorized  Edition  of  each,  we  have  as  follows,  the 


in  tlie  Augsburg 
Confession. 


Article  on  Original  Sin. 


Literal   Translation  of  the 
Latin. ^ 

II. 

Also  they  teach,  that  after 
Adam's  fall,  all  men  begotten 
after  the  common  course  of 
nature  are  born  with  sin  ;  that 
is  without  the  fear  of  God, 
without  trust  in  God,  and  with 


Literal    Translation  of  the 
German. X 

The  Second. 

Further  is  taught,  (I)  that 
after  the  fall  of  Adam,  (II)  all 
men  who  are  born  naturally,  are 
conceived  and  born  in  sins, 
that  is,  that  they  all  from  the 
mothers  womb,  are  full  of  evil 


d.  A  C.  150.  Lat.  B43-G46.  Rudelbach :  Ref.  L.  u.  Un.  665-068.  Ebiard : 
Abendmahl,  345-347. 

*  Corpus  Reformat,  xxvi.  153.  Compared  with  the  Latin  in  Pfaff.  L.  S.  Ap- 
pendix 4.  Luther's  Werke  Walch  :  xx.  1-3.  Chytrrei :  Hist.  (1576)19;  Do,Lat. 
(1578)21;  J.  J.  MuUer's  Histor.  442.     Coelestinus  :  i.  25.     Scultetus  :  AnnaL 

f  For  the  Latin  here  translated,  the  writer  has  before  him  the  original  Witten- 
berg Edition  of  1530-1531.  He  has  compared  it  word  for  word  with  the  text  of 
the  Book  of  Concord  (Muller's  ed.),  and  finds  that  they  do  not  differ  in  a  word  or 
a  letter. 

X  For  the  German  we  have  translated  from  the  original  Editio  Princeps  of 
Melanchthon,the  Wittenberg  4to.  1530,  1531. 


THE  ARTICLE  IN  THE  A.   CONFESSION.         357 


fleshly  appetite,  and  that  this 
disease  or  original  fault  is  truly 
sin,  condemnino;  and  brinirino: 
now  also  eternal  death  upon  all 
that  are  not  born  again  by 
baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 


They  condemn  the  Pelagians, 
and  others,  who  deny  this  orig- 
inal fault  to  be  sin  indeed :  and 
who,  so  as  to  lessen  the  glory 
of  the  merits  and  benefits  of 
Christ,  argue  that  a  man  may 
by  the  strength  of  his  ow^n 
reason  be  justified  before  God. 


desire  and  inclination,  and  can 
have  by  nature,  no  true  fear  of 
God,  no  true  love  of  God,  (VII) 
no  true  faith  in  God.  That  also 
the  same  inborn  plague  and 
hereditary  sin  is  truly  Sin,  and 
condemns  all  those  under  God's 
wrath,  who  are  not  born  (IV) 
again  (III)  through  baptism 
and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Here  (V)  are  rejected  the 
Pelagians,  and  others,  who  do 
not  hold  (VI)  original  sin  to  be 
sin,  in  order  that  they  may 
show  that  nature  is  holy,  by 
natural  power,  to  the  reproach 
of  the  sufferings  and  merit  of 
Christ. 


As  the  text  of  the  German  Ed.  Princ.  of  Melanchthon,  and 
that  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  are  not  critically  identical,  and  as 
the  distinction  of  the  two  texts  will  be  alluded  to  occasionally  in 
these  dissertations,  and  is  sometimes  misunderstood,  it  may  be 
well  at  this  point  to  illustrate  more  particularly  the  nature  of 
the  differences.  The  causes  which  led  to  the  substitution  of 
the  Formula  text  for  the  Melanchthonian  have  been  o-iven 
elsewhere.*     Taking  the  Second  Article,  w^e  present  a 

*  p.  248-253. 


858 


CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 


Tabular  View  of  the  Critical  Differences  between  the 
Melanchthonian  and  the  Formula  Texts. 


I. 

1 [ 

1 :  is  taught 

2  :  adds  :  among  us, 

3  :  adds :  and  preached 

in  our  churches. 

Weim.  1. 

Mentz. 

Nurem. 

Nordl. 

Ansp.  2. 

II. 

1 :  fall  of  Adam. 
2:  Adam's  fall. 

Weim.  1. 

Mentz. 

Nurem. 

Ansp.  2,  3. 

IIL 

1 :  wieder. 
2:  widerum. 

Weim.  1. 

Mentz. 

Nurem. 

Ansp.  2. 

Ed.  ant.  5. 

IV. 

1 :  geborn. 

2:  neu  geborn. 

3:  von  neuem  geborn. 

Weim.  1. 

Mentz. 

Nurem. 

Nordl. 
Aug. 

Ansp.  1,  2,  3. 

Ed.  ant.  1,2, 
3,  4,  5,6. 

V. 

1:  Hie. 
2:  Hieneben. 
[3:  Daneben. 
YI. 

Weim.  1. 

Mentz. 

Hie,  Ansp.  2. 
Corrected. 

Hie  (neben). 

Ansp.  2.  First 
so  written: 
a  line  drawn 
over  rieben. 

1:  halten. 
2 :  haben. 

Mentz. 

Ed.  ant.  6. 

VIL 

1:  KeinewahreGottes- 

lieb. 
2:  Omit: 

AlltheMSS. 

Ed.  ant.  1,6. 1 

In  this  tabular  view,  the  ITos.  I,  II,  III,  lY ,  Y,  YI,  YII,  refer 
to  the  parts  of  the  Article  similarly  marked.  The  reading 
marked  1,  is  that  of  Melanchthon's  Edit.  Princeps  ;  the  reading 
marked  2,  that  of  the  text  in  the  Book  of  Concord ;  3,  a  read- 
ing different  from  both.  When  the  readings  of  the  MSS.  and 
the  editions  surreptitiously  printed  before  Melanchthon's  Ed. 
Princeps  differ  from  Melanchthon's,  they  are  given  in  this 
table.  For  Melanchthon's  readings  are  all  the  rest,  in  each 
case.  The  complete  list  of  the  Codices  in  alphabetical  order  is 
as  follows: 

Codices  :  1,  Aug(8burg) ;  2,  Cass(el) ;  3,  Dresd(en) ;  4,  Han- 
ov(er) ;  5,  Mentz;  6,  Mun(ich);  7,  N'urem(berg) ;  8,  lN'ord(lin- 
gen) ;  9,  Ansp(ach);  10,  Ansp.  2  ;  11,  Ansp.  3  ;  12,  Weim(ar) 
1 ;  13,  Weim.  2.  Printed  Ante-Melanchthonian  editions, 
(Edit,  antiq.)  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  of  1530. 


THE  ARTICLE  IN  THE  A.    CONFESSION.         359 

To  give  an  example  of  the  mode  of  using  the  Table,  under 
various  readings:  I,  all  the  codices  and  editions  sustain 
Mehmchthon's  reading,  except  Mentz,  I^Tur.,  iJs'ordl.,  Ansp.  2, 
and  Weim.  1  ;  under  11,  all  but  Weim.  1,  Mentz,  I^ur.,  Ansp. 
2, 3  ;  under  III,  all  but  Weim.  1,  Mentz,  :N^ur.,  Ansp.  2.,  Ed.  ant. 
6.  The  most  remarkable  is  Yll.  It  is  found  alone  in  the 
Editio  Princeps,  and  Melanchthon's  editions  of  the  German. 
Taking  the  aggregate  of  the  testimony  of  Codices  and  Edi- 
tions, it  is  about  in  the  ratio  of  more  than  two  for  Melanchthon's 
Editio  Princeps,  to  one  for  the  text  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
and  this  too  includes  the  readings  of  the  earliest,  and,  con- 
sequently, immaturest  of  the  Codices.  The  Codices  we  have 
given  in  alphabetical  order,  have  been  arranged  chronologically^ 
thus :  1,  Weim.  1  (Spalatin's  autograph) ;  2,  Ansp.  1 ;  3, 
Hannov. ;  4,  Mentz,  (long  believed  to  be  the  original,  and,  as 
such,  was  taken  for  the  text  of  the  Book  of  Concord) ;  5,  Weim. 
2 ;  6,  Dresd.  ;  7,  Ansp.  2 ;  8,  Ansp.  3  ;  9,  Cass.  ;  10,  Mun. ;  11, 
ISTur. ;  12,  I^ord. ;  13,  Augs.  These  Codices  are  copies  of  the 
Confession  made  during  its  preparation,  and,  ccEteris  paribus^ 
the  later  the  time  at  which  the  copy  was  made,  the  greater 
the  probability  of  its  exact  conformity  with  the  text  actu- 
ally handed  in.  An  important  mark  of  maturity  is  the 
addition  of  the  subscriptions.  The  first  three  are  incom- 
plete, the  first  six  are  without  the  subscription.  Beginning 
with  7,  Ansp.  2,  the  rest  have  the  subscription  except  ^[un., 
which  is  a  fragment  terminating  in  the  Articles  on  the 
^NEass.  The  facts  we  have  presented  demonstrate  four  things: 
First,  that  the  question  of  the  two  German  texts  which  have 
had  Confessional  authority  in  our  Church,  is  purely  critical. 
For  all  doctrinal  and  practical  ends  the  two  texts  are  one. 
Any  principle  which  would  really  unsettle  the  text  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  as  a  Confession.,  would  much  more  unsettle 
the  text  of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  as  a  Rule.  The  two  texts  of 
the  German  Confession  difier  much  less  than  the  texts  of  the 
Textus  Receptus  of  the  Greek,  and  of  Tischendorf  s  Eighth 
Edition.  It  does  not  disturb  our  faith  that  we  have  criti- 
cally diverse  texts  of  the  Rule,  for  they  teach  the  same  faith, 
nor   will    it   disturb   our   coufession    that    we   have    slightly 


360  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

diverse,  critical  texts  of  the  German  form  of  the  Creed,  for  they 
confess  the  same  faith.  Second  :  The  differences,  even  of  a 
critical  kind,  are  of  a  very  trifling  character.  Third:  The 
Editio  Princeps  of  Melanchthon  is  the  highest  critical  author- 
ity. Fourth  :  While  the  text  of  the  Book  of  Concord  has  the 
highest  Confessional  authentication,  and  ought  not  to  be 
changed,  except  by  authority  of  the  Church,  it  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  this,  that  the  Editio  Princeps  be  used  as  an  aid 
in  interpreting  it.  Identical  as  the  two  texts  are,  for  the  most 
part,  in  their  very  words,  absolutely  identical  in  doctrine,  we 
may  thank  God  that  Ave  have  in  the  two  the  historical  evi- 
dence of  the  untiring  conscientiousness  of  effort  on  the  part  of 
our  Fathers,  to  give  the  most  perfect  form  of  sound  words  to 
the  one  faith,  and  that  the  two  texts,  so  far  from  disturbing, 
^x  more  absolutely  that  one  sense  of  the  Confession,  the  percep- 
tion of  which  is  essential  to  real  unity  on  the  part  of  those 
who  profess  to  accept  it. 

The  Papal  Confutation  was  read  before  the  Emperor,  Aug.  3d. 
The  second  Article  was  approved  so  far  as,  1:  "they  confessed 
with  the  Catholic  Church,  that  the  fault  of  origin  is  truly  sin- 
IV.  Tiie  Papal  Condemning  and  bringing  eternal  death  to  those 
Confutation.  ^"j^^  ^^^  ^^^^  bom  agalu  of  Baptism  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  as  also  in  their  condemnation  of  the  Pelagians,  ancient 
and  modern,  whom  the  Church  had  already  condemned." 

2.  "  But  the  declaration  of  the  Article,  that  original  sin  is 
this,  that  men  are  born  without  the  fear  of  God,  without  trust 
toward  God,  is  to  be  entirely  rejected,  since  it  is  manifest  to 
every  Christian  that  to  be  without  the  fear  of  God,  and  trust 
in  Him,  is  rather  the  actual  offence  of  the  adult,  than  the  fault 
of  a  new-born  babe,  which  is  not  yet  able  to  exercise  reason,  as 
the  Lord  saith  unto  Moses,  (Deut.  i.  89:)  'Your  little  ones, 
which  in  that  day  had  no  knowledge  between  good  and  evil.' " 

3.  "  But  that  declaration  is  also  rejected  in  which  they  call 
the  fault  of  origin,  fleshly  appetite  (concupisceiitia),  if  by  this 
they  mean  that  fleshly  appetite  is  sin,  which  also  remains  sin 
in  a  child  after  Baptism." 

4.  ''For  long  ago  the  Apostolic  See  condemned  two  Arti- 
cles of  Martin  Luther,  the  second  and  third,  concerning  sin 


A    COMMISSION  OF  FOURTEEN  PERSONS.       361 

remaining  in  a  child  after  Baptism,  and  in  regard  to  the  incen- 
tive (femes)  which  prevents  the  soul  from  entering  heaven." 

5.  "  But  if,  as  St.  Augustine  uses  the  term,  they  assert  that 
the  fiiult  of  origin  is  carnal  appetite,  which  in  Baptism  ceases 
to  he  sin,  their  doctrine  is  to  be  received,  since  St.  Paul  also 
teacheth,  Eph.  ii.  3,  we  are  all  born  the  children  of  wrath,  and, 
Rom.  V.  12,  in  Adam  we  have  all  sinned."  * 

Seven  persons  on  each  side  were  appointed  to  compare  the 
views  of  the  Protestants  (Lutherans)  and  Romanists.  On  each 
side  the  commission  consisted  of  two  princes,  two  ^  ^  ^^^^.^_ 
jurists,  and  three  theologians.  The  Romish  theo-  sion  ot  fourteen 
logiaus  were  Eck,  Wimpina  and  Cochleus:  the  p""'"""' 
Protestant  theologians  were  Melanchthon,  Schnepf  and  Bren- 
tius.     Spalatin  was  added  to  the  commission  as  notary. 

1.  Before  this  commission,  the  Lutheran  Confessors  pre- 
sented the  following  explanation  of  the  part  of  the  second 
Article  which  had  been  objected  to :  "  When  it  is  said  in  the 
second  Article,  in  the  Latin,  that  man  is  born  by  nature  with- 
out trust  in  God,  and  without  fear  of  God,  the  language  is  to 
be  understood  not  alone  of  children  who  are  too  young  to  have 
these  emotions,  but  it  means  that  when  they  are  grown  they 
cannot,  by  their  natural  powers,  have  the  fear  of  God,  and 
trust  in  Him.  And  to  be  born  thus,  without  this  power  and 
gift,  is  a  defect  of  that  righteousness  which  ought  to  have  been 
derived  to  us  from  Adam  (had  he  not  fallen).  In  the  German 
this  Article  is  so  clearly  stated,  that  it  cannot  be  impugned, 
for  it  is  there  said  that  '  We  are  not  by  nature  able  to  fear 
God,  and  trust  in  Him,  in  which  words  adults  are  also  em- 
braced.' 

"In  regard  to  the  natural  inclinations,  we  maintain,  that  the 
nature  of  sin  remains,  but  the  condemnation  is  removed  by 
baptism."  f 

2.  In  regard  to  the  second  Article,  Dr.  Eck  remarked 
that,  in  the  main  part,  it  was  in  conformity  with  the  teaching 
of  the  Christian  Church,  but  was  defective  in  the  definition, 
and  in  calling  fleshly  appetite  original  sin,  and  in  maintaining 

*  Latin  in  Ease's  L.  S.  Proleg.  Ixxviii.     German  in  Chytrgeus,  H.  A.  C.  236,  b. 
•J-  MuUer's  Hist.  Protestat.  746.     Latin :  Ca4estinus,  iii.  55. 


362  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 

that  it  remained  sin  before  and  after  baptism  ;  though,  if  the 
terms  were  employed  as  St.  Augustine  used  them,  there  would 
be  a  logomachy,  rather  than  an  actual  diversity  between  the 
parties. 

Melanchthon,  in  reply,  begged  leave  to  make  an  explanation 
in  reo-ard  to  two  points  — first,  as  to  the  words  "  without  fear 
and  trust ; "  and  second,  as  to  the  incitement  {fomes)  to  sin. 
His  explanation  was,  that  he  had  wished  to  avoid  the  scholastic 
phraseology,  in  which  original  sin  is  styled,  the  defect  of  original 
righteousness  (carentia  rectitudinis  originalis),  which  he  had 
expressed  in  the  words,  "  without  fear  and  trust,"  but  the  sense 
was  the  same. 

Dr.  Eck  replied,  that  Melanchthon's  form  and  mode  of  ex- 
pression w^ere  new,  otherwise  they  would  already  have  agreed 
on  the  Article;  but  as  there  had  been  only  an  avoidance  of  the 
ordinary  term,  the  views  of  the  two  parties  might  be  consid- 
ered as  harmonized.  On  the  second  point.  Dr.  Eck  acknowl- 
edged that  the  material  of  sin  remains.  The  two  parties  were 
considered  therefore  as  having  agreed  upon  this  Article.* 
The  statement  of  the  result  in  this  point,  made  by  the  Romish 
portion  of  the  commission  to  the  Emperor  (August  23d),  is  as 
follows :  —  "  In  this  Article  they  agree  with  us,  and  rightly  con- 
demn the  Pelagians  and  others,  as,  for  example,  the  Zwing- 
lians  and  Anabaptists,  who  deny  original  sin.  But  in  the  defi- 
nition of  original  sin  they  did  not  agree  with  us.  The 
Lutherans,  finally  agreeing  with  our  opinions,  say,  that 
original  sin  is  a  want  of  original  righteousness,  that  the 
condemnation  of  this  sin  is  removed  in  baptism,  but  that  the 
incitement  {fomes),  or  fleshly  appetite,  remains  in  men  even 
after  baptism." 

4n  ample  and  admirable  vindication  of  the  Article  against 
the  Romish  Church,  the  Church  which  canonizes  and  deserts 
Augustine,  and  reprobates  and  follows  Pelagius,  is  found  in  the 
Apology  of  the  Confession. 

In  beginning  the  analysis  of  the  Second  Article  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  its  relations  to  the  Articles  between 
which  it  is  placed  are  worthy  of  notice.     The  First  Article 

*  From  Spalatin's  Protocol,  in  MiiUer's  Hist.,  748. 


RELATION  OF  SECOND  ARTICLE  TO  FIRST.     363 

treats  of  God  in  His  essence,  and  in  His  creation  or  creative 
work.  The  Third  Article  treats  of  Christ,  and  of  His  redemp- 
tory  work.  These  two  Articles  are  naturally,  and  Relation  of  the 
indeed  necessarily,  connected  by  the  Second  Article,  secon.i  Article  to 
which  shows  how  the  creature  oi  bod,  lormed  Third.  TheAnai. 
originally  in  the  moral  likeness  of  God,  comes  to  ^"^• 
need  a  Redeemer. 

This  Article  of  the  Confession,  if  analyzed,  will  be  found  to 
present  either  in  so  many  words,  or  by  just  inference,  the  fol- 
lowing points : 

I.  The  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  taught  with  great  unanim- 
ity by  our  Churches. 

II.  The  true  doctrine  of  sin  presupposes  a  right  anthropology, 
a  true  doctrine  of  man. 

III.  The  TIME  of  the  operation  of  original  sin  is  the  whole 
time  subsequent  to  the  fall  of  Adam. 

lY.  The  PERSONS  affected  by  it  are  all  human  beings  born  in 
the  course  of  nature. 

V.  The  MODE  of  the  perpetuation  of  original  sin  is  that  of 
the  natural  extension  of  our  race. 

VI.  The  great  fact  asserted  in  this  doctrine  is  this,  that  all 
human  beings  are  conceived  in  and  born  with  sin. 

YII.  This  sin  results  or  reveals  its  working  in  these 
respects : 

1.  That  all  human  beings  are  born  without  the  fear  of  God. 

2.  That  they  are  born  without  trust  and  love  toward  God. 

3.  That  they  are  born  with  concupiscence,  i.  e.,  that  from 
their  birth  they  are  full  of  evil  desire  and  evil  propensity. 

4.  That  they  can  have  by  nature  no  true  fear,  nor  love  of 
God,  nor  faith  in  God. 

VIII.  The  ESSENCE  of  orio-inal  sin  involves  that  this  disease 
or  vice  of  origin  is  truly  sin. 

IX.  The  natural  consequence  of  this  original  sin  is  this, 
that  it  condemns  and  brings  now  also  eternal  death. 

X.  The  natural  consequence  is  actually  incurred  by  all  who 
are  not  born  again. 

XI.  When  the  new  birth  takes  place  it  is  invariably  wrought 
hy  the  Holy  Spirit. 


364  CONSERTATIYE    REFORMATION. 

XII.  This  new  birth  by  the  Holy  Spirit  has  baptism  as  an 

ORDINARY  MEAN. 

XIII.  Baptism  is  the  only  ordinary  mean  of  universal 
application. 

XIV.  Our  Church  condemns  : 

1.  The  Pelagians. 

2.  All  others  who  deny  that  the  vice  of  origin  is  sin. 

3.  All  who  contend  that  man  by  his  own  strength  as  a 
rational  being  can  be  justified  before  God. 

4.  AVho  thus  diminish  the  glory  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  and 
of  his  benefits. 

In  enlaro-ins;  upon  this  analysis  of  the  Second  Article,  it  is 
to  be  noticed  then, 

I.  It   affirms    the  unity  of  the  Evangelical  Church   in  the 
,    ,     doctrine  of  Oridnal  Sin.     The  first  words  of  the 

Unity   of    the  »  -,  ^      n  ^^   J.^  j.*    i 

Church  in  the  First  Article  are  understood  before  all  the  articles, 
nirsin'"^^"^''  to  wit:  "The  Churches  among  us  teach,  with 
great  accord"  (magno  consensu).  "  It  is  taught  and  held 
with  unanimity." 

The  Augsburg  Confession  avoided  all  minor  matters,  and  all 
statements  of  doctrine,  in  regard  to  which  there  was  any 
diftereuce  among  those  who  presented  it,  who  were  the  author- 
ized representatives  of  their  Churches.  It  embraces  only  the 
leading  fundamental  articles  of  the  Evangelical  system,  and 
the  minimum  of  detail  in  regard  to  these. 

A  Lutheran,  historically  and  honestly  such,  cannot  therefore 
hold  less  than  the  Augsburg  Confession;  hence  it  is  as  true  now, 
as  it  was  when  the  Confession  was  given,  that  our  Lutheran 
Churches  hold,  confess,  and  teach  the  same  doctrine  of  Original 
Sin,  among  themselves,  to  wit,  the  very  doctrine  confessed  by 
our  Fathers  at  Augsburg. 

If  men  like  Wegscheider,  Bretschneider,  and  other  Rational 
ists,  or  if  Arminians,  or  Pelagians,  or  Semi-Pelagians,  or  for  the 
matter  of  that  Demi-semi-pelagians,  who  choose  to  call  them- 
selves Lutherans,  reject  the  doctrine,  it  only  proves  that  they 
are  willing  to  bear  a  name  to  which  they  have  no  just  claim 
whatever.  It  is  the  distinctive  position  of  the  Reformation 
with  which,  over   against  Rome,  it  stands  or  falls,  that  that 


ANTIIROPOL  0  G  Y.  365 

which  properly  constitutes,  defines,  and  perpetuates  in  unity  a 
Church,  is  its  doctrine^  not  its  name  or  organization.  AVhile  a 
Church  retains  its  proper  identity  it  retains  of  necessity  its 
proper  doctrine.  Deserting  its  doctrine  it  loses  its  identity. 
The  Church  is  not  a  hody  which  bears  its  name  like  England, 
or  America,  which  remain  equally  England  and  America, 
whether  savage  or  civilized,  Pagan  or  Christian,  Monarchical  or 
Republican.  Its  name  is  one  which  properly  indicates  its  faith 
—  and  the  faith  changing,  the  Church  loses  its  identity. 
Pagans  may  become  Mohammedans,  but  then  they  are  no  longer 
Pagans  —  they  are  Mohammedans.  Jews  may  become  Chris- 
tians, but  then  they  are  no  longer  Jews  in  religion.  A  Mani- 
chean  man,  or  Manichean  Church,  might  become  Catholic,  but 
then  they  would  be  Manichean  no  more.  A  Romish  Church 
is  Romish  ;  a  Pelagian  Church  is  Pelagian  ;  a  Socinian  Church 
is  Socinian,  though  they  call  themselves  Protestant,  Evangel- 
ical, or  Trinitarian.  If  the  whole  nominally  Lutheran  Church 
on  earth  should  repudiate  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  that  doctrine 
would  remain  as  really  Lutheran  as  it  ever  was.  A  man,  or 
body  of  men,  may  cease  to  be  Lutherans,  but  a  doctrine  which 
is  Lutheran  once,  is  Lutheran  forever.  Hence,  now,  as  from  the 
first,  that  is  not  a  Lutheran  Church,  in  the  proper  and  histor- 
ical sense,  which  cannot  ex  animo  declare  that  it  shares  in 
the  accord  and  unanimity  with  which  each  of  the  Doctrines 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  set  forth. 

11.  The  doctrine  of  the  Second  Article  rests  upon  the  pre- 
suppositions of  a  sound  general  Anthropology. 

1.  It  presupposes  a  sound  view  of  man  as  the  proper  subject 
of  redemption,  capable  of  it  and  needing  it.  This  is  implied  in 
the  very  location  of  the  Doctrine.  Man  is  the  subject  of  redemp- 
tion, and  hence  appears,  not  as  the  ano'els  do,  simply 
as  a  creature  oi  God,  and  withm  theology  m  its 
strictest  sense  (as  the  doctrine  concerning  God],  but  in  a  place, 
which  is  bounded  upon  the  one  side  by  Theology,  on  the  other 
by  Soteriology.  Man,  in  his  two  states  of  integrity  and  cor- 
ruption, touches  the  Theology  which  goes  before,  the  sote- 
riology which  follows  after.  He  stands  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession  where  he  now  stands  in   nature,  in  history,  and 


366  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

in    grace,   between   God    the   Creator,   and   Christ    the    Re- 
deemer. 

2.  It  presupposes  a  sound  definition  of  man,  as  God's  last  and 
highest  earthly  creature,  consisting  of  body  and  soul,  having 
personality,  freedom,  moral  accountability,  and  immortality. 
It  rests  upon  the  old  idea  of  man  expressed  in  the  definition 
of  Hollazius  :  "Man  is  an  animal,  consisting  of  a  rational  soul 
and  an  organic  body,  formed  by  God,  endowed  with  his  image, 
in  the  first  creation,  that  he  might  unfeignedly  worship  hi8 
Creator,  might  live  in  holiness,  and  attain  eternal  blessedness." 

3.  It  presupposes  that  the  Biblical  History  of  man's  creation 
is  literally  true,  that  the  first  pair  were  the  direct  imme- 
diate creation  of  God,  and  that  all  mankind  have  sprung  from 
this  one  pair.  All  the  dignity  and  possibilities  of  humanity  rest 
upon  its  derivation  in  an  extraordinary  manner  from  God.  The 
creation  of  the  first  man  is  narrated  in  general,  in  Gen.  i.  26  seq., 
and  more  fully  delineated  in  Gen.  ii.  7  seq.  The  seeming 
diversities  of  the  account  arise  from  the  diiference  of  their 
objects.  The  derivation  of  all  mankind  from  a  single  pair,  is 
distinctly  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  we  find  nothing 
whatever  in  the  facts  of  natural  science  to  render  it  doubt- 
ful. Science  establishes  the  fact,  that  the  whole  human  race 
is  of  one  species.  It  of  course  cannot  say  whether  the  race  has 
sprung  from  one  pair  or  not,  but  science  demonstrates  that  the 
race  might  have  sprung  from  one  pair,  inasmuch  as  they  all 
belong  to  one  species ;  what  science  shows  to  be  possible,  reve- 
lation distinctly  teaches.  Science  moreover  exhibits  the  fol- 
lowing facts : 

i.  That  nature  is  economical  in  its  resources  ;  that  there  is  no 
waste  of  means,  and  as  one  pair  is  sufficient  to  have  originated 
the  population  of  the  globe,  the  scientific  presumption  is 
strong,  that  there  was  but  one  pair. 

ii.  Natural  science  shows,  that  only  animals  of  the  same 
siKcies  produce  a  permanently  fertile  ofi'spring.  Where  animals, 
though  not  of  the  same  species^  are  sufficiently  near  in  species  to 
have  offspring,  that  offspring  is  invariably  either  absolutely  ster- 
ile, or  the  power  of  propagation  runs  out  speedily.  Thus,  to  take 
a  familiar  example,  the  mule  is  the  offspring  of  the  horse  and 


ANTHROrOLOGY.  367 

the  ass,  and  the  mule  is  barren.  But  the  children  resulting 
from  the  union  of  the  most  widely  diverse  human  races  are 
permanently  fertile  ;  their  posterity  is  extended  from  generation 
to  generation,  so  that  in  all  countries,  where  there  is  a  ming- 
ling of  races,  extreme  in  their  diversity,  there  are  terms  indi- 
cative of  near,  and  of  increasingly  remote  relations.  Such 
terms,  for  example,  are :  Mulatto,  Quadroon,  Octoroon,  Mes- 
tizo, and  many  others. 

iii.  The  traditions  of  the  races  largely  point  to  a  common 
origin.  The  history  of  man  accounts  for  some  of  the  most  dif- 
ficult facts,  in  regard  to  the  distribution  of  mankind  from  one 
centre,  and  overthrows  the  very  hypotheses  which  seem  to  have 
the  largest  amount  of  a  'priori  probability. 

iv.  The  languages  of  mankind  contribute  a  great  deal  of  evi- 
dence as  to  the  original  unity  of  the  races,  which  have  become 
widely  sundered.  We  ourselves  cannot  speak  a  sentence  of 
our  native  tongue,  be  it  German  or  English,  without  giving 
evidence  that  the  whole  of  the  Germanic  race,  of  which  the  Eng- 
lish is  a  part,  are  of  East  Indian  origin.  The  population  of 
this  New  Continent,  and  the  demonstrably  oldest  race  of  the 
Old  Continent,  speak  languages  which  had  a  common  origin. 
Both  drew  their  language  from  that  primitive  tongue,  of  which 
the  Sanscrit  is  the  oldest  existing  remnant. 

The  doctrine  of  the  "  Unity  of  the  Human  Race"  is  impor- 
tant in  its  bearing  on  the  recognition  of  the  equality  and  fra- 
ternity of  all  mankind.  It  is  essentially  connected  with  just 
views  of  original  sin,  and  the  true  view  of  the  nature  of 
redemption.  Although  modern  science  has  sometimes  been 
perverted  to  the  weakening  of  man's  faith  in  this  great  doc- 
trine, yet  the  most  eminent  men  of  science,  whether  Christian 
or  not,  have  united  in  the  judgment,  that  science  does  not 
weaken^  by  any  of  its  facts ^  the  Scripture  witness  to  the  unity  of 
the  human  race. 

The  hypotheses  which  are  opposed  to  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  the  Unity  of  the  Human  Race,  are  in  general  these : 

The  theory  of  the  Coadamites,  i.  e.  of  the  creation  of  several 
original  races. 

The  theory  of  the  Preadamites,  of  men  before  Adam.     This 


368  CONSERVATIVE   HE  FOB. VAT  I  OK. 

was  specially  developed  by  Isaac  Peyrerius,  in  liis  work,  Prce- 
adamikc,  Amsterdam,  1655.  lie  took  the  ground  that  in  Gen. 
i.  26  is  narrated  the  creation  of  the  first  man,  and  in  Gen.  ii. 
is  narrated  the  later  creation  of  Adam,  from  whom  the  Jews 
spring. 

The  theory  of  Autochthons^  which  is  the  prevalent  view 
of  skeptical  naturalists,  is  that  the  race  came  from  the  earth,  in 
its  original  condition,  by  what  is  called  '•^  gcneratio  eqidvoca:'' 
or  that  man  is  the  result  of  the  development  of  a  lower 
organization  into  a  higher. 

4.  This  Second  Article  presupposes  that  subsequeu  t  to  the  first 
creation  of  man,  which  was  immediate^  all  human  beings  are  the 
mediate  creatures  of  God,  and  that  consequently  neither  the  body 
nor  soul  of  children  results  from  an  immediate  creation  by  God, 
but  that  both  are  mediated  in  the  divine  order  of  nature, 
through  the  parents. 

As  the  first  of  our  race  were  the  immediate  creation  of  God, 
so  the  Bible  teaches  that  their  descendants  are  the  mediate 
creation  of  God.  Ps.  cxxxix.  13  ;  Acts  xvii.  26  ;  Heb.  xii.  9. 

The  derivation  of  man  from  God^  now,  may  therefore  be  de- 
scribed as  a  mediate  crcatio7i,  through  omnipotence  exercised  ordi- 
narily^ while  the  creation  of  Adam  teas  immediate^  by  omnipo- 
tence in  its  absoluteness. 

The  propagation,  or  origination  of  the  human  soul,  has 
The  propaga-  bccu  cxplaincd  by  three  theories,  viz :  Preex- 
tionof  thesoui.  ^"^^^^^^  .  Qreationism :  Traducianism. 

The  theory  of  Preexistence  was  maintained  by  Plato,  who 
dwelt  upon  a  seemingly  dim  recollection  of  a  former  condition, 
anamncesis.  It  went  over  from  Plato  through  Philo,  to 
Origen,  but  never  met  with  general  acceptance  in  the  Church, 
and  was  ex[>ressly  condemned  in  the  Council  of  Constantinople 
in  513.  In  recent  times,  it  has  been  defended  by  Kant,  who 
thinks,  in  his  work  ''  Religion  icithin  the  bounds  of  Pure  Reason,'' 
that  to  the  explanation  of  the  radical  evil  in  man  is  required 
the  intelligil)le  fact  of  a  decision  made  1)y  liim  at  some  former 
time.  Srhelling  has  maintained  the  same  view  in  his  ^'-Philo- 
sophical Investigation,  in  regard  to  the  Essence  of  Freedom,''  1809. 

It  has  also  been  most  ably  defended  by  Julias  Mueller,  in  his 


PROPAGATION  OF  THE  SOUL.  369 

great  work  ''On  Sin  "  (4th  Ed.,  1858),  (translated  into  English, 
Clark's  For.  Libr.,)  who  employs  it  to  solve  the  problem  of 
Original  Sin.  JS'owhere,  however,  has  the  theory  been  put  more 
beautifully,  than  in  the  lines  of  one  of  our  great  English  poets, 
Wordsworlh,  in  his  "  Intimations  of  Immortality,  from  the  Rec- 
ollections of  Childhood."  In  that  poem  he  makes  this  noble 
statement  of  the  Platonic  theory  : 

"Our  birth  is  but  a  sleep  and  a  forgetting; 
The  soul  that  rises  with  us,  our  life's  star, 
Hath  had  elsewhere  its  setting, 
And  cometh  from  afar. 
Not  in  entire  forgetfulness, 
And  not  in  utter  nakedness, 
But,  trailing  clouds  of  glory,  do  we  come, 
From  Heaven,  Avhich  is  our  home." 

But  beautiful  as  is  this  theory,  and  not  without  speciousness, 
it  will  not  bear  the  test  of  logic,  nor  of  the  witness  of  Scrip- 
ture. It  only  cuts  the  knot ;  it  simply  throws  back  the 
question,  puts  it  out  of  sight,  and  does  not  answer  it.  It  is  an 
obvious  subterfuge  to  get  rid  of  a  perplexity,  and  is  like  the 
hopeless  cosmography  of  the  Hindoos,  except  that  it  stops  at 
the  elephant.  It  is  opposed  to  the  great  fact  of  our  human 
experience,  as  to  the  similarity  between  the  soul  of  the  parent 
and  child,  and  is  contradicted  by  the  general  drift  of  Scripture, 
and  specially  by  Gen.  iii.  and  the  whole  argument  in  Rom.  v.  12, 
seq.  It  in  truth  involves  simply  an  undeveloped  metempsychosis, 
a  transmiorration  of  the  soul.  Its  latest  defender  is  an  American, 
Dr.  Edward  Beecher^  who  lays  this  theory  as  part  of  the  basis  of 
what  he  claims  to  be  the  solution  of  the  "Conflict  of  Ages."  (1854.) 

The  theory  of  Preexistence  in  another  form  asserts  simply 
that  all  souls  were  created  at  the  beginning,  by  the  word  of 
God,  and  are  united,  at  conception,  with  the  human  organism. 

Immediate  Creationism  maintains  that  there  is  a  direct 
creation  of  the  soul  by  God,  and  that  about  the  fortieth  day 
after  conception  it  is  united  with  the  embryo.  The  passages 
of  Scripture  which  have  been  appealed  to  sustain  this  view 
arc  Jer.  xxxviii.  16;  Isa.  Ivii.  16;  Zach.  xii.  1;  Acts  xvii. 
28  ;  Ps.  cxix.  73 ;  Job  x.  12 ;  Do.  xxxiii.  4 ;  i^umb.  xvi.  22 ; 

24 


370  COXSERVATIVE   REFOR MATIO X. 

Do.  xxvii.  16  ;  Ileb.  xii.  9,  and  in  the  Apocryphal  books,  2 
Mace.  vii.  22.  Jerome  asserts  that  this  was  the  view  of  the 
Church,  but  this  is  an  over-statement  of  the  fact,  although  it 
certainly  was  the  view  of  a  number  of  the  Fathers.  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  says  :  "  Our  soul  is  sent  from  Heaven."  Lactantius 
says:  "Soul  cannot  be  born  of  souls."  It  is  the  predominant 
view  of  the  Roman  Church.  Most  of  the  Reformed  (Calvin- 
istic)  theologians  maintain  it,  and  usually  with  the  theory  that 
by  the  union  of  the  soul  with  the  body  the  soul  becomes  sinful. 

But  this  theory  is  really  untenable.  The  strongest  of  the 
Scripture  passages  quoted  to  sustain  it,  imply  no  more  than 
that  the  spirit  of  man  has  higher  attributes  than  his  body^  is  pre- 
eminent as  God's  work,  and  the  chief  seat  of  his  image,  with- 
out at  all  implying  that  His  creation  of  the  soul  is  a  direct  one. 
It  would  be  quite  as  easy,  not  only  to  show  from  other  pas- 
sages, but  to  show  from  a  number  of  these,  that  the  body  of 
man  is  the  direct  creation  of  God,  which,  nevertheless,  no  one 
will  maintain. 

To  Pelagians,  and  the  Pelagianizing  Romanists,  this  theory 
mdeed  is  not  encumbered  with  the  great  moral  difficulty  arising 
from  the  acknowledgment  of  Original  Sin,  but  to  all  others, 
this  view  involves,  at  its  root,  unconscious  Gnosticism.  It 
makes  matter  capable  of  sin  and  of  imparting  sinfulness.  It 
represents  the  parents  of  a  child  as  really  but  the  parents  of 
a  mere  material  organism,  within  which  the  nobler  part,  all 
that  elevates  it,  all  that  loves  and  is  loved,  is  in  no  respect 
really  their  child.  On  this  theory,  no  man  could  call  his 
child  really  his  own.  He  has  no  more  relation,  as  a  parent,  to 
its  soul,  which  is  the  child,  than  any  other  man  in  the  world, 
and  is  as  really  the  father  of  that  which  constitutes  a  human 
being,  to  every  other  person's  children  as  he  is  to  his  own. 
Moreover,  Avith  all  the  explanations  and  ingenious  resorts 
which  have  been  found  necessary  in  retaining  this  theory,  there 
is  no  escaping  the  inference,  that  it  makes  God  the  author  of 
Siri.  According  to  this  theory,  God  creates  a  perfect,  spotless, 
holy  soul,  and  then  places  it  in  a  polluted  body;  that  is,  He 
takes  what  is  al)solntely  innocent,  and  places  it,  where  it  inev- 
itably, not   by    choice,  but  of  necessity,  is  tainted  with  sin, 


STATUS  INTEGRITATIS.  371 

justly  subject  to  damuation,  and  in  a  great  majority  of  cases 
actually  reaches  eternal  damnation.  AVe  do  not  hesitate  to 
say,  that  though  the  doctrine  has  been  held  by  good  men,  who 
have  guarded  with  great  care  against  obvious  abuse,  it  could 
be  pressed  until  it  would  assume  almost  the  character  of  a 
"  Doctrine  of  Devils." 

The  third  view  is  that  of  Traducianism,  or  mediate  Cre- 
ationism:  the  theory  that  both  body  and  soul  are  derived  from 
the  parents.  This  theory  corresponds  with  the  prevailing  and 
clear  statements  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as,  e.  g.  Gen.  v.  3  ;  Acts 
xvii.  24-26.  It  is  a  doctrine  absolutely  demanded  by  the  exist- 
ence of  original  sin,  and  the  doctrine  that  God  is  not  the  author 
of  sin.  This  view  is  defended,  among  the  Fathers,  especially  by 
TerMUan,  Athanasius^  Gregory  of  Nissen,  and  many  others. 
Augustine  remained  undecided,  confessing  his  ignorance, 
yet  leaning  strongly  to  the  Traducian  View.  The  Lutheran 
Divines,  with  very  few  exceptions,  are  Traducian.  The  ex- 
pressions in  the  Symbolical  Books,  such  as  in  the  Catechism, 
"  I  believe  that  God  has  created  me,"  and  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  "  God  has  created  our  souls  and  bodies  after  the  fall," 
are  meant  of  the  mediate  creation,  not  of  the  direct. 

The  true  theory  of  Traducianism  is,  thai  it  is  a  creation  by  God., 
ofiohich  the  parents  are  the  divinely  ordained  organ.  The  soul  of 
the  child  is  related  mysteriously,  yet  as  closely,  to  the  soul  of 
the  parent  as  its  body  is  to  theirs,  and  the  inscrutable  mys- 
tery of  the  eternal  generation  of  God's  Son  from  the  absolute 
Spirit,  mirrors  itself  in  the  origin  of  the  human  soul. 

5.  This  Article  presupposes,  antecedent  to  all  human  sin,  a 
state  of  integrity.  God  said,  Gen.  i.  26,  "-  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness.''  This  imao-e  of  God  in  man     „, ,     . 

,  ,  ~  Status    intcgn- 

18  something  which  is  not  absolutely  lost,  but  is  tatis,  or  the  btato 
fearfully  marred.  See  1  Cor.  xi.  7  ;  James  iii.  9 ;  "'  '"''^"'^■ 
Eph.  iv.  24 ;  and  Col.  iii.  10.  The  traditions  of  the  race  pre- 
serve the  memory  of  a  golden  age,  a  time  of  innocence  and 
happiness;  the  Confession  implies  that  the  race  has  fallen 
from  a  condition  of  glory  and  bliss.  Man  was  created  with  an 
ability  not  to  sin,  which,  had  he  been  faithful,  would  have  been 
merged  into  a  condition,  in  which  he  could  not  sin  :  the  ^' posse 


372  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

non  jpeccare  "  would  have  become  a  "  non  posse  ipeccare^''  and  the 
"  "posse  non  mori  "  would  have  been  merged  into  "  nonposse  mori.'' 
The  abode  of  unfallen  man  was  the  Garden  of  Eden,  or 
Paradise.  "  The  state  of  integrity  was  that  happy  condition  of 
man  in  which  he  was  conformed  to  the  image  of  God.  The 
'  image  of  God  '  is  natural  perfection,  consisting,  in  conformity 
with  God  the  prototype,  in  wisdom,  righteousness,  purity,  im- 
mortality, and  majesty.  It  was  concreate  in  the  parents  of  our 
race,  so  that  they  rightly  knew  and  worshipped  our  Crea- 
tor, and  lived  in  holiness,  and  would  have  obtained  a  yet  more 
glorious  blessedness."^ 

"  In  the  widest  conception  of  the  image  of  God,  there  per- 
tains to  it  everything  which  marks  man  as  a  rational  being. 
In  this  general  sense,  the  image  of  God  is  not  lost  entirely, 
though  obscured.  In  its  more  specific  sense,  it  embraces  the 
religious  element  in  man,  and  its  chief  part  is  original  righteous- 
ness. This  involves  the  conformity  of  the  understanding  with 
the  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  God  ;  conformity  of  the  will  with 
the  holiness  of  God,  and  with  freedom  ;  conformity  of  the  affec- 
tions with  the  purity  of  God.  The  secondary  conformity  consisted, 
partly^  in  the  conformity  within  man,  and  partly,  in  that  which 
was  without  man.  The  body  of  man  unfallen  was  an  image  of  the 
immortality  of  God.  It  was  free  from  suffering  and  from  calam- 
ity. It  imaged  the  eternity  of  God  by  its  immortality,  its  free- 
dom from  necessity  of  dying.  Rom.  v.  12  ;  vi.  23.  The  perfec- 
tion without  man,  which  belongs  to  the  image  of  God,  was  con- 
formity of  his  outward  dominion,  with  the  power  and  majesty 
of  the  Creator.  He  was  Lord  of  the  world,  in  which  he  had 
been  placed  ;  all  the  creatures  of  the  world,  in  which  he  had 
been  placed,  were  under  his  dominion.  Gen.  i.  26,  ib.  ii.  19."  f 
Over  against  just  and  Scriptural  views  of  the  image  of  God 
are  arrayed  first  the  views  which  suppose  it  to  have  been  one  of 
corporeal  likeness.  This  was  the  view  of  the  Anthropomor- 
phites.  ^^ext  the  Socinians  and  many  Arminians,  conceding 
that  it  was  in  conjunction  with  immortality,  yet  restricted  it 
to  the  dominion  over  the  animal  world.     The  Pelagians   and 

*Hnll.Hzius. 

f  Quenstedt.  See  Iluttcrus  Uediv.  (Hase)  §80,  andLutbardt  Koinp.  d.  Dogm.  §41 


THE  STATE   OF  CORRUPTION.  373 

Rationalists  suppose  the  image  of  God  in  its  religious  aspect 
to  have  been  little,  if  at  all,  injured.  The  Romish  theology 
has  a  Pelagianizing  tendency.  The  Fathers  of  the  Greek 
Church  distinguish  between  the  image  of  God  and  his  likeness, 
referring  the  one  to  the  rational  nature  of  man^  and  the  other  to 
the  spiritual  nature  of  man. 

The  Reformation  found  a  deep  corruption  in  this,  as  in  other 
doctrines.  Low  views  of  justification  prevailed  because  men 
had  low"  view^s  of  sin.  Over  against  the  spurious  theology  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  the  uipology  says:  "  Original  righteousness 
w^as  not  only  a  just  blending  of  the  qualities  of  the  body,  but, 
moreover,  these  gifts,  the  assured  knowledge  and  fear  of  God, 
trust  in  God,  and  the  power  of  rectitude."  The  Formula  Con- 
cordiee  :^  "  Original  righteousness  is  the  concreate  image  of  God, 
according  to  which,  man  in  the  beginning  was  created  in  truth, 
holiness,  and  righteousness."  Hollazius  sa^'S,  "The  principjal 
perfections  constituting  the  image  of  God,  are  excellence  of 
understanding,  perfect  holiness,  and  freedom  of  will,  purity  of 
desires,  and  a  most  sweet  consent  of  the  affections,  with  the 
dictates  of  the  understanding,  and  the  government  of  the  will, 
all  in  conformity  with  the  w^isdom,  holiness,  and  purity  of  God. 
The  less  principal  perfections  of  this  image  were:  freedom 
from  every  taint  of  sin  in  the  body,  immunity  from  corrupting 
passions  in  the  body,  its  immortality,  and  the  full  power  of 
ruling  all  earthly  creatures." 

6.  To  a  correct  conception  of  original  sin  it  presupposes  cor- 
rect views  of  sin  in  general,  as  having  its  proper  cause  in  the 
finite  will,  not  in  the  infinite  w^ill,  and  as  embracing  the  condi- 
tion of  tlie  finite  will,  as  well  as  its  overt  acts. 

The  need  of  redemption  rests  upon  the  fall  from  God  through 
sin.  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,  or  rather,  it  is  that 
which  is  not  consonant  with  the  law,  it  is  the  anti-     ^,     , 

'  The   state    ot 

legal,  the  unlegal,  and  the  non-legal ;  John  iii.  4,  corruption. 
avo,ai«.     Melanchthon defines  sin  to  be:  "a  defect,  or  inclination, 
or  action,  conflicting  with  the  law  of  God."     Calovius  defines 
it  still  more  compactly,  but  with  the  same  sense,  as  :  "  Illegal- 
ity, or  deformity  from  the  law^:  that  is,  the  opposite  to  conform- 

«  ''Solida  Declaratio,"  p.  640. 


374  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

ity  with  the  law."  Deformity,  as  here  used,  means  a  "  want 
of  confoDiiitij.''  Mailer^  in  his  great  work  on  "  The  Christian 
Doctrine  of  Sin,"  defines  it  to  be  a  turning  away  from  the  love 
of  God  to  selfishness.  In  the  Holy  Scriptures,  sin  is  considered 
as  enmity  against  God  ;  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God, 
Rom.  viii.  7.  By  the  general  consciousness  of  sin  is  derived 
the  general  consciousness  of  the  need  of  redemption.  Gal.  iii.  22. 
It  pertains  to  the  very  essence  of  religion,  that  5???,  which  is  the 
opposite  of  religion,  takes  its  origin  not  from  the  Creator,  but 
from  the  creature ;  and  however  systems  may  have  tended  logi- 
cally, actually  to  make  God  the  author  of  sin,  no  system  has  unre- 
servedly admitted  such  a  conclusion.  St.  James  says  :  ''  Let 
no  man,  when  he  is  tempted,  say,  'I  am  tempted  of  God,'  for 
God  is  incapable  of  being  tempted  of  evil,  and  he  truly  tempts 
no  one ;  but  every  man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn  away  by 
the  desire,  which  is  his  own,  that  is,  by  his  ow^i  lust."  The  argu- 
ment of  St.  James  is,  that  God's  incapacity  of  being  himself 
tempted  to  sin,  is  evidence  that  he  abhors  it,  and  no  being  vol- 
untarily causes  that  which  he  abhors.  If  God  could  be  the 
cause  of  sin  in  others,  he  would  necessarily  be  the  cause  of  it 
in  himself ;  in  fact,  to  be  the  cause  of  sin  in  others  is  to  be 
sinful  ourselves.  If  God  be  the  cause  of  sin,  he  would  himself 
be  a  sinner ;  but  as  it  is  conceded  that  God  is  himself  free  from 
sin,  he  cannot  be  its  cause.  Hence,  the  Augsburg  Confession., 
Art.  XIX.,  says:  "Although  God  creates  and  preserves  na- 
ture, yet  the  cause  of  sin  is  the  will  of  the  evil,  i.  e.  of  the 
Devil  and  of  wicked  men,  which,  God  not  assisting,  turns  itself 
from  God  ;  as  Christ  says,  John  viii.  44,  when  he  speaketh  a 
lie,  he  speaketh  of  himself."  When  the  Confession  says  ''  non 
adjuvante  Deo^''  it  does  not  mean  that  God  does  not  assist  in 
the  repression  of  this  sin,  and  that  consequently  it  takes  place, 
but  means  that  God  in  no  sense  assists  to  the  production  of 
sin  ;  that  proceeds  from  the  will  of  the  evil  in  its  independent 
self-moving  power.  The  German  expression  parallel  with  this 
is,  that  "  the  cause  of  sin  is  the  will  of  the  Devil  and  of  all  the 
godless,  which,  so  soon  as  God  has  taken  away  his  hand,  turns 
itself  from  God  to  the  evil."  But,  by  ''  the  hand  of  God  " 
here  is  not  meant  the  moral  power  by  which  he  sways  the  will 


THE  STATE   OF  CORRUPTION.  375 

to  gooi,  but  simply  his  repressive  external,  power,  and  the 
meaning  is,  that  the  sinful  will  consummates  itself  in  sinful 
act,  wherever  it  is  not  repressed  by  the  Providence  of  God. 
Qnrnsfrdt  embodies  the  faith  of  our  Church,  when  he  says 
emphatically  :  "  God  is  in  no  respect  whatever  the  efficient 
cause  of  sin  as  such,  neither  in  part,  nor  in  the  whole;  neither 
directly,  nor  indirectly  ;  neither  ^^^r  se,  nor  by  accident  ;  neither 
in  the  species  of  Adam's  fall,  nor  in  the  genus  of  sin  of  any  kind. 
In  no  respect  is  God  the  cause  or  author  of  sin,  or  can  be  called 
such.  See  Ps.  v.  5,  ib.  xlv.  12,  Zach.  viii.  17,  1  John  i.  5, 
James  i.  13-17.  But,  whatever  there  is  of  want  of  conformity 
Avith  the  law,  av.,ar/,  that  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  free  will  of  the 
creature  itself,  acting  of  its  own  accord.  See  further,  Hosea 
xiii.  9,  Matt,  xxiii.  37." 

In  regard  to  these  passages,  which  speak  of  a  hardening  on 
the  part  of  God,  such  as  Exod.  vii.  3,  John  vii.  10,  Rom.  ix.  18, 
Hollazius  says :  "  God  does  not  harden  men  causally,  or  eiFec- 
tively,  by  sending  hardness  into  the  hearts  of  men,  but  {judi- 
ci'a^zYer,)  judicially,  permissively,  and  desertively." 

The  standing  sophism  against  just  views  of  original  sin  is 
that  nothing  is  sin  except  it  be  voluntary ;  and  that  nothing 
is  voluntary,  unless  it  be  done  with  a  distinct  consciousness 
and  purpose  of  the  will.  But,  over  against  this,  the  Scriptures 
and  sound  logic  teach,  that  to  a  true  conception  of  what  is  vol- 
untary, i.  e.  is  of,  or  pertains  to  the  will,  belongs  the  state  of  the 
will  previous  to  any  act.  Before  there  can  be  a  voluntary  act, 
there  must  be  a  state  of  the  w^ill  which  conditions  that  act. 
Original  sin,  therefore,  is  voluntary  sin  on  this  broader  and 
more  Scriptural  conception  of  what  is  voluntary.  The  IN'ew 
England  theology,  in  our  country,  has  laid  special  stress 
upon  the  false  conception  of  what  is  voluntary.  The  ApoU 
ogy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  says:  "The  adversaries  (i.  e. 
Pelagianizing  Romanists,)  contend  that  nothing  is  sin  ex- 
cept it  be  voluntary.  These  expressions  may  hold  good 
among  philosophers,  in  judging  of  civil  morals,  but  thej^  have 
nothino^  to  do  with  the  iudg^ment  of  God."  Hollazius  savs: 
*'  The  element  of  the  voluntary  does  not  enter  into  a  definition 
of  sin,  generically  considered.     A  sin  is  said  to  be  voluntary. 


376  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

either  subjectively.,  as  it  inheres  in  the  will,  or  efficiently .^  as  it 
results  from  the  deliberate  will.  In  this  last  respect,  not  all 
sin  is  voluntary.  This  is  held  over  against  the  Papists  and  So- 
cinians,  who  define  sin  exclusively  as  the  voluntary  transgres- 
sion of  the  law." 

7.  It  presupposes  that  from  the  original  state   of  integrity 
there  was  a  Fall  of  Man  into  a  state  of  sin. 

The  original  Fall  of  man  from  God  resulted,  according  to 
The   Fall    of  ^^^'  '^^^'i  f^'om   cxtcmal   temptation   and   inward 
Man.  desire,  leading  to  doubt  of  the  Divine  goodness, 

and  transgression  of  the  Divine  command.  The  consequences 
of  this  Fall  were :  terror  before  the  presence  of  God,  not  filial 
reverence,  but  servile  fear  ;  the  expulsion  from  Paradise  ;  the 
troubles  of  earthly  life  —  temporal  death  only  prevented  by  the 
mercy  of  God  —  from  passing  into  eternal  death. 

The  Fall  of  man  is,  throughout,  presupposed  as  a  fact,  in  the 
whole  Biblical  teaching  in  regard  to  original  sin.  Ration- 
alism and  Pseudophilosophism  have  treated  it  as  a  fable  ; 
an  allegorical  delineation  of  the  passing  away  of  the  golden 
age,  a  myth  of  the  transition  from  instinct  to  moral  free- 
dom, or  of  the  pernicious  result  of  longing  after  a  higher 
condition.  "  Without  the  Fall,"  says  Hegel,  "  Paradise 
would  have  been  but  a  park  for  beasts."  The  literal  historical 
sense  of  the  narrative  of  the  Fall  is,  nevertheless,  the  only  one 
consistent  with  the  obvious  intent  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  unworthy  of  God,  or 
out  of  keeping  with  the  laws  of  the  human  soul.  God  gave 
the  commandment,  allowed  the  temptation,  that,  by  it,  man's 
natural  holiness  might  be  strengthened,  if  he  would,  hy  his  free 
will.  The  serpent  was  but  the  organ  of  the  Devil ;  the  essence 
of  the  divine  command  lay  in  its  setting  forth  love  to  God, 
and  acquiescence  to  His  will,  as  that  which  should  be  supreme 
in  man.  The  transgression  was  an  apostasy  from  this.  The  sim- 
pler the  test,  the  clearer  was  its  issue,  the  sublimer  its  moral  mean- 
ing. The  more  insignificant  the  outward  act,  the  more  certain  it 
is  that  the  grandeur  of  the  principle  will  not  be  confounded  Avith 
the  grandeur  of  the  circumstances.  The  prinnple  of  the  neces- 
sity of  the  absolute  acquiescence  of  the  will  of  the  creatures  in 


THE  FALL    OF  MAN.  377 

the  will  of  the  Creator  has  none  of  the  splendor  of  drapery  in 
Paradise  that  it  has  in  the  revolt  of  the  angels  in  heaven,  and 
it  stands  out,  for  this  reason,  more  nakedly,  sharply,  and  legihly 
in  the  history  of  the  Fall  of  Adam,  than  in  that  of  the  fall  of 
Satan.  The  littleness  of  the  spirit  of  sin  may  readily  he  for- 
gotten in  the  dazzling  array  of  its  raiments,  or  in  the  haleful 
dignity  of  its  mischievous  results. 

Hollazius  defines  the  first  sin  thus: — "  The  Jirst  sin  of  7nan, 
or  Fall,  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  Paradise,  in  which 
our  first  parents  violated  the  divine  interdict  which  for- 
bade them  to  eat  the  fruit  of  the  '  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,'  being  persuaded  thereto  by  the  Devil,  and 
abusing  the  freedom  of  will,  and  thus  brought  on  them- 
selves, and  on  their  posterity,  born  of  them  in  the  order 
of  nature,  the  loss  of  the  divine  image,  grievous  fault  (culpam), 
and  liability  (reatum)  to  temporal  and  eternal  punishment.  The 
cause  of  the  first  sin  is  not  God,  but  the  Devil,  who  persuaded, 
and  man  who  transgressed  the  Divine  law,  being  overcome  by 
the  persuasion  of  the  Devil,  and  abusing  the  freedom  of  the  will. 
Our  first  parents,  in  the  Fall,  directly  violated  a  jyositive  law,  but 
indirectly  and  virtually,  by  their  disobedience,  broke  through 
the  restraints  of  the  ivhole  moral  law.  The  Fall  of  Adam  was 
not  necessary  to  manifest  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God." 

"  This  deflection,"  says  Quenste  It,  "  embraces  in  its  course 
certain  distinct  acts  of  sin,  which  may  be  classed  as  follows: 
i.  Incredulity,  —  not  having  faith  in  the  word  of  God.  ii.  Af- 
fectation of  the  likeness  of  God.  iii.  A  purpose  springing  from 
this  transgression  of  the  law.  iv.  A  carrying  out  of  this  pur- 
pose into  action.''  In  the  Fall  of  our  first  parents  began  original 
sin.  "It  is  called,"  says  Quenstedt,  "  original  sin, not  because 
it  existed  either  from  the  beginning  or  origin  of  the  world,  or 
of  man,  but  partly,  because  it  takes  its  origin  in  man,  with  the 
origin  of  each  man ;  partly,  because  it  is  the  fount  and  origin 
of  all  actual  sin."  Tertullian  probably  first  introduced  the  term. 

A  distinction  is  drawn  between  "  peccatum  originale  origi- 
nans,"  and  "  peccatum  originale  originatum."  The  latter  is  by 
preeminence  styled  "  original  sin."  Thus  "  original  sin,"  if  not 
by  imputation,  yet  by  some  form  of  association,  passed  over  to 


378  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

all  the  posterity  of  Adam  and  Eve.  The  Formula  ConcordicE 
says  :  "  The  hereditary  evil  is  that  fault  (culpa)  or  liability  (rea- 
tus)  whereby  it  conies  that  we  all,  because  of  (propter)  the  dis- 
obedience of  Adam  and  Eve,  are  under  God's  abhorrence,  and 
are  by  nature  children  of  wrath."  *  The  Apology  f  says :  "  Some 
dispute  that  original  sin  is  not  a  vice  or  corruption  in  the  nature 
of  man,  but  only  a  servitude  or  condition  of  mortality,  which 
they,  who  are  propagated  from  Adam,  without  vice  of  their  own, 
but  on  account  of  another's  fault,  inherit.  We,  that  we  may 
show  that  this  doctrine  displeases  us,  make  mention  of  concu- 
piscence, and  declare  that  a  corrupt  nature  is  horn.^^  Whatever, 
therefore,  may  be  the  relation  of  imputation  to  original  sin, 
our  Church  holds  it  to  be  an  impious  opinion,  that  our  misery 
and  liability  are  merely  the  results  of  imputation.  The  pri- 
mary point  is,  that  we  do  actually  participate,  in  our  nature, 
in  the  corruption  wrought  by  the  Fall.  "  Original  sin  is  that 
vitiation  of  human  nature  arisino;  from  the  fall  of  our  first 
parents,  accidental,  (in  the  theological  sense,)  propagated  by 
human  conception,  proper  and  real  in  all  men,  whereby  they 
are  destitute  of  the  power  of  rightly  knowing  and  worshipping 
God,  and  are  constantly  impelled  to  sin,  and  exposed  to  eternal 
death." 

TIL  The  Second  Article  of  the  Confession  sets  forth  the  time 
Time.  of  t^®  operation  of  original  sin,  to  wit,  that  of  the 
whole  period  commendng  with  the  Fall  of  Adam. 

This  implies : — 

1.  That  man  was  created  holy.  He  had  original  righteousness. 
Gen.  i.  26,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  like- 
ness." In  these  words  image  is  not  one  thing,  and  likeness 
another,  but  the  icord  likeness  defines  the  word  image.  An 
image  may  be  like  that  of  a  mirror,  a  mere  reflection  ;  but 
this  image  is  one  which  makes  real  likeness  or  similitude. 
The  grand  element  of  the  image  of  God  in  man,  as  created 
originally,  is  that  which  conforms  him  to  what  is  most  essen- 
tially Godlike  in  God  ;  that  is,  to  His  moral  perfection.  His 
holiness,  purity,  and  truth.  In  a  certain  sense,  the  spirituality 
of  man's   natare,  his  immortality,  his   noble  endowments  of 

*  Page  689.  p.  9.  fP.  51.  p.  9. 


TIME.  379 

intellect,  aifectioii,  and  active  power,  and  his  place  in  creation,  aa 
lord  and  ruler  of  the  world,  are  associated  with  and  hound  up 
with  his  bearing  the  image  of  God ;  hence,  in  Gen.  i.  2G,  im- 
mediately after  the  words  "  Let  us  make  man,''  we  have  the 
words,  "-Let  /dill  have  doiainion,''  where  "  dominion"  is  not  iden- 
tified with  the  "  image,"  as  some  expositors  would  make  it,  but 
is  dependent  on  the  image  and  likeness,  and  is  conditioned  by  it, 
for  the  ground  of  man's  rule  over  the  world  is  not  his  merely 
intellectual  gifts,  in  which  probably  the  devils,  certainly  the 
angels,  surpass  him,  but  the  presumption  and  desire,  on  God's 
part,  of  his  ruling  it  in  righteousness  and  holiness.  His  in- 
tellectual powers  are  but  the  means  by  which  his  moral  powers 
carry  out  their  ends. 

The  image  of  God  is,  preeminently,  then,  man's  original 
holiness  ;  the  conformity  of  his  mind  to  the  mind  of  God  ; 
of  his  will  to  the  will  of  God  ;  in  short,  whatever  is  most  com- 
pletely and  sharply  antithetical  to  original  sin.  Just  what  he 
lost  by  sin,  is  preeminently  what  he  possessed  most  completely 
in  the  image  of  God,  and  in  the  original  righteousness,  which 
was  its  vital  part.  That  man's  moral  nature  is  that  which 
has  suffered  most  in  the  Fall,  that  his  intellectual  abilities,  and 
his  power  of  outward  rule  over  nature,  are  left  in  comparative 
strength,  is  evidence  that  it  w^as  in  his  moral  nature  he 
stood  nearest  to  God.  The  more  glorious  the  image,  the  com- 
pleter was  its  wreck.  That  this  judgment  as  to  the  image  of 
God  is  correct,  is  shown  by  various  passages  of  Scripture  ;  as, 
Eccl.  vii.  29  ;  2   Cor.  iii.  18  ;  Eph.  iv.  24  ;  Col.  iii.  10. 

2.  That  he  lost  this  righteousness.  From  the  exalted  posi- 
tion nearest  to  God,  he  descended  to  the  degradation  of 
misery  and  sin.  In  short,  as  original  righteousness  made  him 
like  God  in  that  which  is  most  Godlike,  so  the  Fall  plunged 
him  into  that  which,  in  its  essence,  is  most  remote  from  God. 
Now  nothing  is  so  completely  in  antagonism  to  God  as  sin. 
Ignorance  is  the  counterpart  to  divine  knowledge  and  wisdom  ; 
weakness  to  divine  omnipotence ;  but  sin  is  set  against  the 
very  heart  and  moral  glory  of  God.  The  ignorant  and  the 
weak  may  be  children  of  God,  and  bear  his  image,  but  the 
sinful  are  sundered  from  Him  by  an  impassable  gulf ;  though 


380  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

they  had  the  knowledge  of  an  archangel,  and  a  might  aa 
near  that  of  God  as  the  creature's  might  can  he,  yet  with  sin, 
their  image  is  that  of  the  Devil,  and  not  that  of  God. 

3.  That  with  this  loss,  originated  human  sin. 

4.  That  man's  nature  thereby  became  a  sinful  one.  Adam 
remained  in  the  state  to  which  the  original  or  primary  sin 
reduced  him.  All  human  nature  at  the  time  of  the  Fall  was 
embraced  in  Adam  and  Eve  ;  they  were  then  the  human  race  ; 
they  actually  formed  all  human  creatures  ;  therefore  of  neces- 
sity, when  Adam  and  Eve  fell,  all  human  nature,  then  existing, 
fell ;  all  human  creatures,  actually  existing,  fell  then  as  com- 
pletely as  if  there  had  been  millions  instead  of  two  ;  hence 
the  human  race  and  human  nature  fell. 

5.  Lastly,  under  this  thesis  is  asserted  that  original  sin  has 
continued  in  the  world  from  that  hour  to  the  present. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Confession  speaks  of  the  Fall  of 
Adam  only  ;  Eve  is  not  mentioned,  though  she  was  first  in  the 
transgression.  Why  at  least  is  not  the  phrase,  "  Fall  of  our 
Why  is  \.iam  fi'^^^  jMreiits  ?  "  lu  this  the  Confession  strictly  fol- 
aione mentioned?  lows  thc  llue  of  ScHpturc  representation:  "By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so 
death  passed  over  upon  all  men."  Rom.  v.  12.  In  the 
Apostle's  sense,  sin  did  not  enter  into  the  loorld  in  Eve's  trans- 
gression ;  nor  did  death  enter  into  the  vorhl  by  her  sin  ;  at 
most,  sin  and  death  entered  her.  While  she  was  yet  alone  in 
the  transgression,  sin  had  not  yet  entered  the  world,  nor  death 
by  sin.  What  had  been  possible  for  Adam,  even  as  to  the  res- 
toration of  Eve,  at  this  point,  belongs  perhaps  to  a  sphere  of 
speculation  into  which  it  is  not  wise  to  enter,  but  it  is  certain 
that  the  race  yet  stood  in  Adam.  It  was  yet  in  his  power  to 
save  mankind.  The  prohibition  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  was  given  directly  only  to  Adam,  and  took  place 
before  the  creation  of  Eve,  (Gen.  ii.  17-21.)  It  bound  the 
woman,  not  because  God  repeated  it  to  her,  but  because  she 
was,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  under  the  same  law  with  her 
husband.  After  the  Fall,  God  says  to  Adam :  "  Ilast  thou 
eaten  of  the  tree  whereof  I  commanded  fhrr  that  thou  shouldst 
not  eat?"  —  but  to  Eve,  while  Ilis  words  imply  her  great  gnilt, 


WHY  IS  ADAM  ALONE  MENTIONED?  381 

lie  speaks  of  no  such  direct  command.  Eve  was  not  co-ordi- 
nate with  Adam,  hut  represented  in  him.  She  sinned,  per- 
sonally, in  her  own  personal  act,  but,  in  the  full  sense,  ohe  fell 
only  when  Adam  fell. 

Adam's  body  w^as  first  formed  — the  entrance  of  the  breath 
of  God  made  man,  body  and  soul.  Eve  was  taken  from 
Adam,  but  this  was  no  new^  inbreathing  from  God.  She  was 
the  ematiation,  so  to  speak,  of  the  whole  man  —  the  effluence 
of  his  body  and  soul,  and  the  life  of  the  whole  race  is  that  one 
united  life.  Eve  is  called  the  mother  of  all  living  ;  but  Adam 
is  the  source  of  all  living,  including  Eve.  There  is  then  but  one 
human  life  in  the  world  —  perpetuated  and  extended  through 
the  generations  —  the  emanation  of  the  first  life  —  that  of 
Adam.  Hence  the  race  has  not  fallen  in  Eve  as  well  as  in 
Adam  —  because  her  life  also  was  derivative.  The  one  primal 
life  derived  from  Adam  brings  with  it  the  impress  of  Adam's 
fallen  nature.  Our  nature  is  his  very  nature  in  emanation,  as 
our  life  of  body  and  soul  is  his  life  in  emanation  —  and  as 
the  very  life  and  nature  are  transmitted,  so  are  the  Fall 
and  its  penalty  transmitted.  Adam's  life  and  nature  is  the 
sijie  qua  non  of  our  life  and  nature —  Adam's  sin  the  sine  qua 
non  of  our  sin. 

IV.  The  Confession  teaches  that  the  persons  affected  by 
original  sin  are  all  human  beings  born  in  the  course  of  nature. 

This  implies  that,  without  exception,  all  the  children  of  oui 
race,  alike  all  the  children  of  the  most  holy  and  of  the  most 
godless,  have  original  sin.  The  character  of  the  parent  may, 
within  a  certain  limit,  benefit  or  injure  the  innate  tendencies  to 
character  in  the  child  ;  but  character  is  not  nature.  All  human 
beings  have  the  same  nature.  In  this  nature  original  sin 
inheres,  and  all  alike  inherit  it.  With  reference  to  this  inher- 
ited character,  it  is  sometimes  called  hereditary  sin.  In  German 
its  usual  title  is  "  Erbsiinde." 

In  the  doctrine  that  all  men  (omnes  homines),  born  in  the 
course  of  nature,  have  this  sin,  is  implied  the  falseness  of  the 
Romish  figment,  in  regard  to  the  sinlessness  of  the  mother  of 
our  Lord.  It  rejects  the  idea  of  the  immaculate  conception  of 
Mary,    which   has    been  established    in    oar    own    time  as    a 


382  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK 

doctrine  of  tlie  Romish  Church.  The  doctrine  of  the  immacu- 
late conception,  to  wit :  that  the  Virgin  Mary  loas  conceived  and 
horn  without  sin,  had  been  for  centuries  maintained  by  the  Fran- 
ciscans, and  denied  by  the  Dominicans,  but  was  set  forth  au- 
thoritatively by  Pius  IX.  in  1854,  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church.*  The  birth  of  Mary  was  a  human  birth,  and  hence, 
hers  was  a  nature  with  the  taint  of  original  sin. 

In  this  thesis,  moreover,  is  implied  the  freedom  of  our  Lord 
from  original  sin,  for  his  birth  was  not  in  the  course  of  nature. 
He  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (Apostles'  Creed,  Art. 
II.) ;  He  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
(l^icene  Creed,  Art.  III.) ;  and  his  birth  was  divine  and  super- 
natural. 

And  here,  it  is  impossible  not  to  be  struck  with  the  beautiful, 
Scripture -like  reticence  of  our  Confession,  for  while  it  most 
clearly  either  states  or  implies  that  original  sin  has  been  in  the 
world  since  Adam's  Fall  ;  that  without  that  Fall  it  would  not 
have  been ;  that  our  natural  descent  from  him  actually  is  accom- 
panied, in  every  case,  by  the  inheritance  of  the  moral  nature, 
into  which,  so  to  speak,  he  fell,  it  does  not  define  how^  theo- 
HETICALLY,  the  sin  of  Adam  is  related  to  us ;  does  not  touch 
the  question  of  imputation  at  all.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
sets  forth  the  chief  Articles  of  Faith,  the  Faith  of  the  Church 
universal,  that  is  of  the  true  Catholic  Church,  but  the  doctrine 
of  imputation^  as  a  theory,  belongs  to  scientific  theology.  The 
Augsburg  Confession  presents  the  whole  question,  only  in  its 
great  practical  elements,  as  these  in  some  form  or  other  are 
grasped  by  faith,  and  take  part  in  the  general  belief  of  the 
Church. 

AVe  cannot  recall  a  single  passage,  in  any  of  our  Confessions, 
in  which  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  alluded  to,  even  in 
passing,  as  an  Article  of  Faith.  The  Confessions  say  no  more 
than  that  our  fallen  condition  was  "  through  the  disobedience  of 
Adam,''  or  "  on  account  of  it,''  and  expressly  reject  the  idea  that 
^^  original   sin   is  derived   to   us  by  imputation  only."t     "We 

*  See  Preuss  on  the  "  Immaculate  Conception,  "  which  has  been  translated  into 
English,  and  Pusey's  Irenicon. 
f  Formula  ConcordijB,  575. 


WHY  IS  ADAM  ALONE  MENTIONED?  383 

reject,"  says  the  Formula,  "  and  condemn  tliat  doctrine 
which  asserts  that  original  sin  is  only  a  liability  and  debt 
derived  to  us,  by  the  fault  of  another,  without  any  cor- 
ruption of  our  own  nature."  These  expressions,  however,  do 
not  exclude  the  doctrine  of  imputation  in  every  shape.  It  is  a 
question  of  theology,  as  distinguished  from  the  sphere  of  faith 
proper,  and  to  that  it  should  be  referred. 

That  all  men  are  embraced  in  the  operation  of  original  sin, 
is  clearly  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

1.  It  is  taught  in  direct  and  positive  assertion  of  the  univer- 
sality of  original  sin.  Rom.  v.  12, "  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man, 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin ;  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  Mark  in  the 
passage  the  sphere  of  original  sin  ;  the  word"  men,"  and  the 
word  "all,"  i.  e.  "  all  men."  Death  itself  is  declared  to  be  the 
token  and  evidence,  that  all  have  sinned.  The  dominion  of 
sin  is  as  wide  as  the  dominion  of  death,  that  is,  it  is  universal. 
It  shows  that  the  operation  is  not  limited  to  adults  ;  and 
that  there  may  be  no  mistake  in  regard  to  this,  as  if  men 
might  suppose  that  infixnts  were  regarded  as  exceptions,  it 
says  in  verse  14,  "  death  reigned  .  .  .  even  over  them  that  had 
not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression," 
i.  e.  over  infants,  who  had  not  sinned  by  conscious  acts  of 
transgression,  as  Adam  and  Eve  did  ;  but,  if  infants  come 
ander  it,  a  fortiori  all  others  must.  It  adds  in  verse  15,  "for 
If  through  the  offence  of  one  the  many  be  dead,"  (Greek,)  and 
in  verse  18,  "  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,"  and  in  verse  19,  "  as  by  one  man's  dis- 
obedience, (the)  inanij  were  made  sinners." 

2.  In  the  specification  of  the  classes  embraced  in  this 
universal  operation  of  original  sin.  Eph.  ii.  3:  "  AYe  all  were 
by  nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  By  "  we  all," 
is  meant  the  Jewish  Christians.  "  AYe  Jews  '  even  as  others,'  " 
i.  e.  Gentiles.  Jews  and  Gentiles  embrace  mankind,  and 
if  even  the  members  of  God's  elect  race  are  subject  to 
this  law,  a  fortiori  the  Gentiles  w^ould  be,  if  there  were  any 
distinction. 

3.  In  the  Scriptural  negation  of  any  limitation  of  the  uni- 


384  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

versalit,y  of  original  sin.  Job  xiv.  4,  "Who  can  bring  a  clean 
thins:  out  of  an  unclean  ?  not  one." 

4.  In  the  exceptional  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  alone  free 
from  original,  as  well  as  actual  sin,  in  which  is  implied  that 
all  but  He  are  born  in  sin.  "He  knew  no  sin,"  2  Cor.  v.  21, 
was  "without  sin,"  Heb.  iv.  15.  "  He  was  holy,  harmless,  un- 
defiled,  and  separate  from  sinners,"  ib.  vii.  26.  In  all  this  is 
implied  more  than  our  Saviour's  freedom  from  acts  of  sin.  To 
our  Lord,  and  to  Him  alone  belongs,  among  men,  an  untainted 
nature  ;  to  every  other  child  of  Adam  pertains  the  curse  of 
original  sin.  To  the  freedom  of  our  Lord's  nature  from  orig- 
inal sin,  it  was  essential  that  his  conception  shonld  be  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  his  birth  out  of  the  course  of  nature.  They  who 
are  not  thus  conceived  and  born  must  have  the  taint  of  orig- 
inal sin,  that  is,  as  the  Confession  affirms :  The  whole  race, 
whose  conception  and  birth  are  in  the  sphere  of  nature,  are  con- 
ceived and  born  in  sin. 

V.  The  next  thesis  of  the  Confession  pertains  to  the  mode  of 
perpetuation  of  original  sin. 

It  connects  this  with  the  natural  extension  of  our  race.  !N'ot 
only  are  human  heinous  born  with  it,  but  it  oris^inates 

Mode.  .  *^  ,  ^.  . 

with  their  natural  life,  and  before  their  natural 
birth  ;  and  hence,  with  reference  to  each  human  being,  it 
comes  to  be  called  "original  sin."  It  is  the  sin  which  is  so 
mysteriously  original  with  man.  Its  origin,  and  our  origin,  are 
simultaneous.  It  is  originated  when  man  is  originated,  and  be- 
cause he  is  originated,  and  by  his  origination.  Hence,  the  term 
original^  which  has  been  objected  to  in  the  statement  of  the 
doctrine,  is  more  expressive  and  accurate  than  any  that  could 
be  substituted  for  it.  The  great  point  in  this  thesis,  is  that  sin 
passes  into  the  life  of  the  race,  not  by  imitation,  as  the  Pela- 
gians contend,  but  by  hereditary  congenital  transmission,  and 
that  this  propagation  is  its  natural  source. 

Over  against  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  and  other  speculators, 
who  maintain  that:  "the  progeny  of  Adam  do  not  derive 
their  corruption  iiaturnlbj  from  him,  but  that  corruption  de- 
pends upon  the  ordination  of  God,"  (see  Calvin,  on  Gen.  iii.  6,) 
the  Auo:sburo;  Confession  distinctlv  connects  orio-inal  sin  with 


FA  CT.  385 

the  natural  process  of  descent,  "  secundum  naturain^^^  i.  e.  with 
natural  propagation,  and  natural  birth ;  and  such  is  the  clear 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Ps.  li.  5,  "Behold!  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity."  See  Gen.  v.  1  &  3 :  in  the  iirst  verse 
we  have,  "  in  the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him  ;  "  and  in  the 
third  verse  this  antithesis^  "and  Adam  begat  a  son,  after  his 
image."  So  our  Lord  Jesus  says,  (John  iii.  6,)"  That  which  is 
boni  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is 
spirit."  Eph.  ii.  3,  "  We  all  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath," 
thatis,asTyndale,  Cranmer,  and  others  say,  "  were  natural  chil- 
dren of  wrath."  The  sin  of  Adam  is  so  related  to  the  condition 
of  the  race,  that  by  and  because  of  our  natural  descent  from 
him,  sin  and  its  penalty  passes  over  to  us.  Rom.  v.  12,  "  By 
one  man  sin  entered  the  world." 

VI.  ^N'ext  the  great  fact  is  asserted.  That  all  human  beings 
are  conceived  and  born  in  sin  and  with  sin,  —  "  ^a- 
scantur  cum  peccato,"  "In  Siinden  empfangen  und 
geboren  werden." 

This  fact  can  be  mentally  separated  from  the  particular  theory 
upon  which  it  rests.  Even  Pagans  have  acknowledged  the 
fact.  And  those  whose  theory  seemed  irreconcilable  with  it, 
and  those  who  have  even  denied  it  in  downright  terms,  have 
been  forced  virtually  to  concede  it.  All  the  refinement  in 
terms,  in  philosophy,  in  the  mode  of  statement  or  of  argument, 
has  not  been  able  to  conceal  the  fact,  that  m,  icith^  and  under 
our  human  nature,  there  lies  something  evil ;  foreign  to  the 
original  condition  of  man;  foreign  to  the  divine  ideal,  and  to 
man^s  own  better  ideal;  something  derived  from  parent  to  child, 
producing  misery,  death,  and  despair ;  something  that  is  the 
power  of  all  sinful  results,  and  the  seed  of  all  sinful  growths. 

The  Scripture  testimony  to  this  great  fact  is  very  explicit. 
Gen.  viii.  21,  "  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth,"  i.  e.  inclusively  in  his  youth  and  ever  after.  Gen.  vi. 
5,  "  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man,"  etc.,  "  loas  only  evil 
continually,''  (Ileb.  lit.  "  evil  all  the  day  ;  "  margin  — "  The  whole 
imagination.")  The  Hebrew  w^ord  signifies  not  only  the  imag- 
ination, but  also  the  purposes  and  desires. 

The  actual  condition  of  the  race  is  depicted  in  the  14th  Ps., 

25 


386  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

VS.  1,  2,  3,  "  They  are  corrupt,  they  have  done  abominable 
works,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,"  (an  absolute  negation.) 
"  The  Lord  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the  children  of 
men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  understand,  and  seek 
God.  They  are  all  gone  aside,  they  are  altogether  become 
filthy,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one."  St.  Paul 
quotes  these  words  as  of  universal  application,  covering  Jews 
as  well  as  Gentiles,  and  although  the  Psalmist  makes  exception 
of  God's  people,  yet  the  exceptions  are  made  by  grace,  and  do 
but  confirm  the  rule.  So  in  Job  xv.  14,  ''  What  is  man  that 
he  should  be  clean  ?  and  he  which  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he 
should  be  righteous."  So  Jer.  xvii.  9,  "  The  heart  is  deceitful 
above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked  ;  who  can  know  it  ?  " 

An  absolute  identity  of  result  in  all  men  in  fact  implies  the 
existence  of  a  common  cause  of  that  result.  If  all  men,  always 
from  earliest  infancy  to  extremest  old  age,  everywhere,  under 
all  diversities  of  race,  education,  and  outward  circumstances,  in 
short,  of  everything  in  which  they  can  differ,  are  sinful,  then 
must  the  root  of  sin  be,  not  in  any  one  thing,  nor  in  all  things 
in  which  they  differ,  but  in  the  thing  or  things  which  they 
have  in  common.  But  the  sole  things  which  men  have  in 
common,  are  their  human  nature,  and  their  common  original 
inborn  moral  condition.  In  one  of  these  must  lie  the  spring 
of  universal  sinfulness ;  but  it  cannot  lie  in  their  nature  as 
such  ;  for  nature  as  such  is  the  work  of  God,  and  cannot  there- 
fore be  sinful.  Sin  is  the  perversion  of  nature,  the  uncreating, 
as  it  were,  of  what  God  has  created,  a  marring  of  His  work.  It 
must  lie  then  in  man's  moral  condition,,  as  fallen  and  inheriting 
original  sin.  The  great  acknowledged /ac As  in  the  case  then  are 
logically  and  necessarily  connected  with  the  theory  of  original 
sin  which  is  maintained  in  the  Confession. 

VII.  The  results  or  revelations  of  the  workings  of  this  orig- 
inal sin  are,  first,,  privative  or  negative,  and  second,,  positive. 
Seventh  Thesis.  '^'  Privativc  ov  ucgativc  showing  itself  in  what  we 
The  results.  havc  lost ;  WO  are  without  fear,  withont  trust,  "  sine 
metu,  sine  fiducia."  ii :  Positive  in  what  we  have,  '^  cum  concu- 
piscentia,  icith  concupiscence." 

i:  1.  Privatively  or  negatively  0Y\g\v\2L\  sin  shows  itself,  first 


SEVENTH  TRESIS.     THE  RESULTS.  387 

in  this,  that  all  human  beings  are  born  without  tha  fear  of  God. 
Conf.  "Sine  metu  Dei;"  "Keine  wahre  Gottesfurcht  haben." 
This  means  not  only  that  an  infant  does  not  and  cannot  con- 
sciously fear  God,  but  that  there  is  in  it  a  lack  of  anything 
which  can  potentially,  or  through  any  process  of  self-develop- 
ment or  of  natural  education,  exercise  such  a  fear  of  God  as  He 
demands  of  the  creature.  We  can  by  nature  have  a  false  fear, 
or  an  instinctive  fear  of  God,  but  not  a  true  fear,  hence  the 
emphasis  of  the  German  of  the  Confession,  "  Keine  wahre ^^ 
"  no  true  fear." 

2.  A  second  element  of  the  privative  result  is,  that  they  are 
born  without  trust  in  God,  without/(u7A  in  Him  or  love  for  Him. 
In  the  fear  of  God  there  is  a  just  contemplation  of  His  natural 
attributes,  and  that  reverential  awe  which  inspires  the  spirit  of 
obedience.  In  trust,  faith,  and  love,  there  is  a  contemplation 
of  His  moral  attributes,  drawing  the  heart  to  Him.  J^either 
our  just  fears,  nor  our  just  hopes  toward  God,  are  left  un- 
touched by  original  sin.  Conf.,  "Sine  fiducia  erga  Deum  ;  " 
"  Keinen  wahren  Glauben  an  Gott,  keine  wahre  Gottesliebe." 

There  is  innate  in  a  child,  before  conscious  exercise,  a  poten- 
tial, true  trust,  faith,  and  love,  toward  its  mother,  and  that  trust 
unfolds  itself  out  of  the  potential  into  the  actual.  Before  a 
child's  first  act  of  love  toward  its  mother,  there  must  be  a 
power  of  loving,  and  that  power  of  loving  must  exercise  itself. 
There  must  be  something  in  a  child  that  can  love  before  it  does 
love,  and  that  something  is  born  with  the  child.  In  other 
words,  a  child  may  be  said,  with  reference  to  this  innate  power, 
to  be  born  with  trust  toward  its  mother.  But  it  lacks  in  its 
nature  that  which  would  enable  it  to  exercise  a  true  trust  in 
God,  such  as  He  demands.  Man  may  by  nature  have  a  false 
trust  in  God,  or  an  intellectual  and  natural  trust,  but  not  that 
higher  and  true  trust  which  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  God's 
nature  and  His  holy  law.  In  order  to  this,  grace  must  impart 
something  with  which  we  are  not  born. 

The  Roman  Catholic  theologians,  in  their  confutation  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  say  that  the  statement  in  this  article  in 
regard  to  original  sin  is  to  be  utterly  rejected,  since  it  is  mani- 
fest to  every  Christian  that  to  be  without  the  fear  of  God,  and 


388  CONSERVATIVE    BEFORMATIOK 

without  trust  toward  God,  is  rather  the  actual  fault  of  the 
adult  than  the  fault  of  a  new-born  infant,  Avhich  is  destitute 
of  the  use  of  reason,  as  the  Lord  says  to  Moses,  Deut.  i.  39, 
*'  Your  children,  which  in  that  day  had  no  knowledge  between 
good  and  evil."  Melanchthon,  in  the  Apology,  replied  by 
referring  to  the  German  form  of  the  Confession,  which  brings 
out  more  clearly  than  does  the  Latin,  that  it  is  not  the  act, 
but  the  power  of  fearing  God  and  trusting  in  Him,  w^hich  is 
referred  to,  or  as  Melanchthon  expresses  it,  not  the  act  only, 
but  the  gift  and  power  of  doing  these  things.  The  Apology 
is  the  best  commentary  on  the  disputed  parts  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  as  well  as  an  able  defence  of  them. 

ii.  The  positive  result  is  that  they  are  born  with  concupis- 
cence^ that  is,  that  from  their  birth  they  are  all  full  of  evil  de- 
sire and  evil  propensity.  The  Confession  says,  '•  Et  cum  concu- 
piscentia."  German:  "  Dass  sie  alle  von  Mutterleibe  an  voller 
boser  Lust  und  Xeigung  sind."  The  term  concupiscence  is  a  ]^ew 
Test,  term,  Rom.  vii.  7,  8,  "  I  had  not  known  lust  (margin,  '  or 
concupiscence')"  etc.,  "  wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupis- 
cence.^^ So  Col.  iii.  5,  "  Mortify  therefore  your  members  which 
are  upon  the  earth  ;  fornication,  uncleanness,  inordinate  affec- 
tion, evil  concupiscence^  and  covetousness,  which  is  idolatry." 
1.  Thess.  iv.  5,  "  Not  in  the  lust  of  concujnscence."  The  Greek 
word  which  it  translates,  and  w^hich  is  used  in  a  number  of 
places  wdiere  it  is  not  translated  concupiscence,  has  the  general 
meaning  of  earnest  and  intense  desire.  Thus  our  Saviour, 
Luke  xxii.  15,  says,  "  With  desire  (epithumia)  I  haA^e  desired 
(epithumeo)  to  eat  this  passover  with  3'ou  before  I  suffer." 
St.  Paul  says,  (Phil.i.  23,)  "Having  a  desire  (epithumia)  to  de- 
part ;  "  1  Thess.  ii.  17,  "  Endeavoured  with  great  desire.''  These 
are  the  only  cases,  three  out  of  thirty-sev^n,  in  which  the  word 
epithumia  is  used  without  implying  something  inordinate 
and  sinful.  The  natural  epithumia  of  an  unsanctified  nature 
is  always  inordinate,  carnal,  sensual,  impure:  it  is  desire,  lust, 
concupiscence.  The  word  is  also  applied  by  metonymy  to  ob- 
jects which  kindle  such  desires.  Every  epithumia  except  that 
of  our  Lord,  and  of  the  natures  conformed  to  His  nature,  is 
represented  as  sinful.     In  the  passage  in  Romans  vii.  7,  8,  con- 


SEVENTH  THESIS.     THE  RESULTS.  389 

cupiscence  is  represented  as  the  motive  power  in  covetousness. 
In  Col.  iii.  5,  it  is  distinguished  from  inordinate  affection  and 
covetousness,  to  which  it  is  related  as  the  root  to  the  tree,  or  as 
the  trunk  to  the  branches.  In  1  Thess.  iv.  5,  the  "  lust  of  con- 
cupiscence" is  mentioned,  that  is,  the  lust  or  positive  desire  gen- 
erated by  the  evil  propensity  inherent  in  our  own  nature ;  that 
is,  the  actual  evil  desire  by  the  original  evil  desire,  or  concupis- 
cence ;  sin  by  sin  ;  sin  the  offspring  by  sin  the  parent,  the  actual 
sin  of  our  character  being  related  to  the  original  sin  of  our  nature, 
as  child  to  mother.  The  Pelagianizing  Romanist  says.  Lust,  or 
concupiscence,  brings  forth  sin,  therefore  it  cannot  be  sin,  be- 
cause the  mother  cannot  be  the  child.  "We  reply.  Concupis- 
cence brings  forth  sin,  therefore  it  must  be  sin,  because  child  and 
mother  must  have  the  same  nature.  The  grand  sophism  of 
Pelagianism  is  the  assumption  that  sin  is  confined  to  acts,  that 
guilty  acts  can  be  the  product  of  innocent  condition,  that  the 
effect  can  be  sinful,  yet  the  cause  free  from  sin  — that  the  un- 
clean can  be  brought  forth  from  the  clean. 

The  word  concupiscence,  therefore,  as  the  representative  of 
epithumia  in  its  evil  sense,  very  properly  designates  that  moral 
condition  which  is  antecedent  to  positive  and  conscious  moral 
acts.  It  is  the  first  phenomenon  of  personality  in  morals,  and 
no  better  practical  definition  can  be  given  of  it,  than  the  simple 
one  of  our  Confession.  It  is  "  evil  desire"  and  "evil  propen- 
sity," "  bose  Lust  und  Is'eigung." 

The  grand  idea  here  lies  in  this,  that  sin  is  in  us  jpotenticdly 
before  it  comes  to  the  act ;  that  the  moral  nature  of  the  infant  is 
born  with  it,  and  does  not  originate  in,  nor  date  its  origin  from, 
any  conscious  movement  of  the  infant's  will,  any  purpose  of 
its  heart,  any  act  of  its  hands  ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
general  character  of  that  movement,  purpose,  and  act  of  will, 
heart,  and  hand,  apart  from  Divine  grace,  is  inevitably  con- 
ditioned as  actmdly  sinful,  and  that  this  actual  sinfulness  is 
merely  on  the  one  side  the  result  and  token  of  a  defect,  and  on 
the  other  the  positive  exhibition  of  an  evil  tendency  already 
in  being,  from  the  time  of  the  origin  of  the  human  nature  of 
the  child.  Hence,  in  a  new  sense,  this  sin  may  be  called  orig- 
inal.    It  is  that  in  which  all  other  sins  in  some  sense  take  their 


390  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

orio-in.  It  throws  its  life  into  them  ;  without  it  they  might 
not  be  ;  it  is  not  only  original,  it  is  also  the  originating  sin,  or 
that  sin  which  gives  the  original  to  all  others. 

Negativelij,  then,  original  sin  is  the  lack  of  original  right- 
•eousness,  that  is,  of  the  righteousness  which  man  originally 
Lad  as  God's  creature,  bearing  His  image,  and  is  the  perpet- 
uation morally  of  original  unrighteousness,  that  is,  of  the  non- 
righteousness  which  fallen  man,  as  fallen,  originally  had. 
Positively,  original  sin  is  evil  desire  and  propensity,  first  exist- 
ing potentially  and  seminally,  so  to  speak,  the  power  of  all 
sinful  results,  and  the  seed  of  all  sinful  growths ;  and  then  re- 
vealing itself  invariably  and  necessarily  in  conscious  and  actual 
gin,  if  not  checked  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

iii.  As  we  have  by  nature  no  true  fear  of  God,  no  true  love 
of  God,  no  true  faith  in  God,  so  neither  can  we  get  them  by 
nature.  Conf.,  "  Keinen  von  IN'atur  haben  konnen."  Original 
fiin  is  not  only  retrospective,  looking  back  to  the  origin  of  our 
race,  but  it  is  prospective,  covering  the  future  as  it  covers  the 
past,  a  pall  upon  the  face  of  the  nations.  In  the  sphere  of 
nature  it  renders  our  condition  utterly  hopeless.  A  man 
may  by  nature  have  a  weak  body,  a  feeble  constitution, 
an  imperfection  of  speech,  but  in  nature  he  may  find  relief 
for  them  all.  Strength  may  come  by  natural  exercise,  flu- 
ency by  repeated  efforts,  but  there  is  no  power  in  man,  in 
his  reason  or  in  his  will,  none  in  education,  none  in  the 
whole  store  of  the  visible,  or  intellectual,  or  moral  world,  which 
can  repair  this  fatal  defect,  and  render  him  God's  reverent, 
loving,  and  trusting  child.  There  is  no  surf-beaten  shore  on 
which  man  may  go  forth  and  train  himself  amid  its  thunders 
and  its  whispers,  to  speak  in  true  faith  and  love  into  the  ear 
of  God  words  which  may  remove  Ilis  righteous  disapproval 
of  our  sinful  and  sinning  nature.  In  other  words,  in  the  sphere 
of  natuT-e,  original  sin  leaves  us  in  utter  and  hopeless  ruin. 
Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God  ;  without  holiness 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord ;  and  by  nature  we  are  destitute  of 
faith  and  holiness  potentially.  In  our  conscious,  moral  life 
there  can  be  no  development  of  them  actually.  We  neither 
have,  nor  can  have  them,  unless  something  not  of  us,  nor  of 


ON  THE  NAMES  DESIGNATING    ORIGINAL   SIN     391 

nature,  supervenes.  ''  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  Ilim : 
neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned."  1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

VIII.  The  essence  of  original  sin  involves  that  this  disease  or 
vice  of  origin  is  truly  sin.     Conf.  Latin:  ''  Quod-     Ki-htii Thesu 
que  hie  morbus  sen  vitium  originis  vere  sit  pecca-  original  sin  \* 
tum."    German :  "  Dass  audi  dieselbio:e  ano-eborene  "^"  ^ '"°' 
Seuche  und  Erbsiinde  wahrhaftiglich  Siinde  sei." 

The  application  of  a  particular  name  to  a  thing  raises  the 
question,  first,  whether  that  name  has  more  than     ^    „ 

^  7  ./  7  Oil   the  names 

one  sense,  and  secondly^  if  it  have,  in  what  sense  ^y  which  origi- 
it   IS  applied   in   the    particular    case   under  con-  nated  in  the  con- 
sideration.    Is  the  name  to  be  taken  literally  or  ^^^^'''°' 
figuratively  ? 

The  following  names  are  applied  to  original  sin  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession :  In  the  Latin,  "  vitium^  morbus,  peccatum'' ;  in 
the  German,  "  Seuche  "  and ''- Siinde.''  As  these  names  have  been 
most  carefully  employed,  we  must  weigh  them  to  realize  their 
full  force,  and  to  reach  w^ith  precision  the  doctrine  which  they 
are  designed  to  convey. 

These  terms  may  be  classified  thus : 

1.  The  terms  that  are  used  metaphorically,  or  by  adapta- 
tion. 2.  The  terms  used  literally.  To  the  first  of  these  belong 
*'  vitium,"  and  "  morbus,"  and  "  Seuche"  ;  to  the  second,  "  pec- 
catum"  and  "  Siinde." 

I.  Morbus.  The  word  "  morbus"  is  nowhere  used  in  the 
Vulgate.  The  word  used  where  we  might  anticipate  "  morbus" 
is  usually  "languor,"  and  sometimes  "fegritudo."  Morbus  is 
defined  by  lexicographers  as  a  "  sickness,  disease,  evil  affec- 
tion of  body  contrary  to  nature."  Original  Sin  as  "  morbus  " 
is,  in  general,  sickness  in  spirit,  analogous  to  disease  in  body. 
The  metaphorical  transfer  is  very  easy  and  obvious.  The 
Confession  does  not  at  all  mean  that  original  sin  is  literally  a 
sickness  or  morbus.  The  Apology,*  w^ith  just  severity,  char- 
acterizes the  scholastic  absurdities :  "  Of  the  fomenting  incli- 
nation (fomes)  —  they  maintain  that  it  is  a  quality  of  body, 

*  79,  7. 


,392  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

and  inquire  whether  it  came  by  contagion  of  the  apple,  or  from 
the  breath  of  the  serpent?  and  whether  medicines  make  it 
worse  ?  " 

II.  YiTiUM.  The  word  vitium  is  used  in  the  Yulsrate  five 
times.  It  has  the  sense,  "fault"  of  a  bodily  kind,  even  in 
animals  ;  "  moral  fault,  vice,"  as  in  Job  xx.  11 :  "  Sin  of  his 
youth."  Vulgate,  "vices  of  his  youth."  Gal.  v.  24:  "The 
flesh  with  the  affections  (margin  'or  passions')  and  lusts." 
Rheims'  transl.  of  Yulg.,  "  vices  and  concupiscences."  With  the 
Yulgate  agrees  in  general  the  classic  usage  of  the  word  vitium. 

III.  The  distinction  between  morbus  and  vitium.  The 
use  of  these  two  words  in  the  Confession  is  not  tautological, 
but  in  the  highest  degree  delicate  and  discriminating.  They 
are  not  synonyms,  but  are  used  not  only  to  convey  a  different 
idea,  but  with  a  certain  degree  of  antithesis.  Cicero,  in  the 
Tusculan  Questions,  Book  4,  says,  "  Morbus  is  the  corruption 
of  the  whole  body,  such  as  is  fever  for  example;  vitium  is 
when  the  parts  of  the  body  are  at  variance  among  themselves, 
from  which  results  pravity  of  the  members,  distortion,  deform- 
ity." So  IsTonius  says,  "  Yitium  is  an  abiding  impediment 
of  the  body,  such  as  blindness,  lameness,  unsoundness." 

Morbus  in  German  Avould  be  "  Krankheit."  Vitium  would 
be  "  Fehler."  The  one  term  may  be  said  to  be  derived  from 
medicine^  the  other  from  surgery. 

Morbus,  in  a  theological  sense,  is  moral  sickness,  disease,  or 
plague ;  vitium  is  moral  vice,  fault,  or  defect,  maiming,  muti- 
lation, or  distortion. 

lY.  There  is  a  correspondence  therefore  between  the  two 
names  vitium  and  morbus,  and  the  two  parts  of  the  definition 
of  original  sin  :  a.  Yitium  corresponds  with  the  negative 
part  of  the  definition.  Original  sin  as  a  defect  of  original 
righteousness,  the  mutilation  of  the  moral  man,  the  lack  of 
something  essential  to  his  moral  perfection,  is  vitium.  h.  Mor- 
bus corresponds  with  the  positive  part  of  the  definition.  Orig- 
inal sin  as  the  presence  of  a  corrupting  element  infecting  the 
moral  man,  the  indwelling  of  a  pervading  and  positive  evil 
added  to  his  constitution,  is  morbus. 

In  a  word,  the  vitium  takes  away  the  good,  the  morbus 


ON  THE  NAMES  DESIGNATING  ORIGINAL  SIN.    393 

Driiigs  in  the  bad.  The  vitium  is  the  lack  of  the  true  fear 
and  trust,  the  morbus  is  the  concupiscence. 

y.  Seuciie.  The  word  Seuche  does  not  translate  either 
morbus  or  vitium.  Its  Latin  equivalent  would  be  "  lues,"  and 
it  is  one  of  the  most  generic  words  in  German  to  express  sick- 
ness. Its  proper  English  equivalent  is  plague,  and  it  is  related 
to  pestilence  and  to  disease  as  genus  is  related  to  species. 
Luther  uses  the  word  "  Seuche"  thirteen  times  in  the  New 
Testament.  Once  he  translates  by  it  the  word  noseema,  in 
John  V.  4,  the  only  place  at  which  it  occurs.  In  the  twelve 
other  cases  he  uses  it  to  translate  "  nosos,"  which  is  the  syn- 
onym of  "  noseema,"  and  is  translated  in  the  authorized 
version  by  the  word  "  sickness"  five  times,  "  disease"  six  times, 
"  infirmity"  once.  In  the  Kew  Testament  the  word  "  nosos  " 
is  used  literally  for  bodily  disease,  except,  perhaps,  in  Matt. 
viii.  17,  "  He  bare  our  sicknesses,"  where  it  has  been  taken, 
though  without  necessity,  metaphorically  for  pain,  sorrow, 
evil  of  a  spiritual  kind.  In  the  Old  Testament,  Luther  uses 
"  Seuche,"  first,  to  translate  "  Madveh,"  in  the  only  two  places  in 
which  that  word  occurs,  Deut.  vii.  15,  and  xxviii.  60,  where  it 
means  literally"  disease,"  and  in  the  first  of  which  the  Septua- 
gint  renders  it  ''  nosos."  Secondly,  Luther  uses  it  to  translate 
"  Quehtev,"  Psalm  cli.  6.  Authorized  Version, "  the  destruction 
which  wasteth  at  noon-day,"  but  Coverdale,  Cranmer,  and  the 
Liturgy  Version  of  the  Church  of  England,  following  Luther, 
translate  it  "  sickness,"  and  the  Genevan,  and,  among  recent 
translators,  IToyes,  "plague,"  and  Ainsworth,  "stinging 
plague.'^ 

The  metaphorical  idea  of  sickness  is  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  Hosea,  v.  18, "  Ephraim  saw  his  sickness,"  i.  e.  his  polit- 
ical weakness  and  wretchedness.  Psalm  ciii.  3,  "  Who  healeth 
all  thy  diseases,"  seems  to  be  used  metaphorically  for  spiritual 
disorders  in  accordance  with  the  parallelism  of  the  first  part, 
"  Who  forgiveth  all  thine  iniquities."  So  Psalm  xli.  4, 
"  Heal  my  soul  ;  for  I  have  sinned  against  thee."  There  sin  is 
represented  as  the  disease  of  the  soul,  God  as  a  ph^^sician, 
grace  as  healing.  The  word  "  holiness"  is  only  another  way 
of  pronouncing  the  word  "  wholeness."     So  Isa.  vi.  10,  "  And 


394  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

convert  and  be  healed,"  that  is,  be  healed  of  sin,  which  is  the 
disease  of  the  soul.  The  Chaldee  Paraphrase  and  the  Syriac 
render:  ''  and  he  forgiven.'' 

The  metaphorical  transfer  of  the  idea  of  disease  and  fault 
to  express  moral  condition  is  so  obvious,  that  we  find  it  in  all 
cultivated  languages.     Cicero  says,  ^'  As  in  the  body  there  is 
disease,  sickness,  and  fault,  so  is  there  in  the  soul." 
We  have  this  triple  parallel  therefore : 

body,  health,  sickness, 

mind,  sanity,  insanity, 

spirit,  holiness,  sin. 

The  analogies  between  morbus,  disease  and  sin  are  very  many. 
1.  Morbus  is  in  conflict  with  the  oris^inal  per- 

Ansilogies     be-  ^  i 

tween  Morbus  and  fection  of  body  with  wliich  man  was  created, 
ong.niiisin.        ^^^  original  rightness  or  wholeness  of  body. 

2.  Morbus  is  a  potency  before  it  is  revealed  as  a  fact. 

3.  Morbus  in  its  tendency  is  toward  death.  The  slightest 
morbus  developed  to  the  last  degree  would  destroy  the  body. 
There  is  no  morbus  so  slight  that  it  has  not  brought  death. 
Strike  out  two  letters,  and  morbus,  "  disease,"  becomes  mors, 
"death." 

4  Morbus  is  common  to  the  whole  race.  Cicero,  in  the  Tus- 
culan  Questions,  325,  translates  from  Euripides  this  sentence, 
"  Mortalis  nemo  est  quem  non  attingit  dolor  morbusque," 
"  There  is  not  one  of  our  race  untouched  by  pain  and  disease." 

5.  Morbus  is  the  spring  of  pain,  grief,  and  misery  to  the 
body. 

6.  Morbus  rests  on  an  inborn  tendency  of  the  body.  It 
could  not  touch  the  body  of  a  sinless  being  without  his  per- 
mission. Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  could  only  endure  it  by  the 
act  of  His  own  will. 

7.  Morbus  is  primarily  in  the  world,  not  because  we  sinned, 
but  because  Adam  sinned  ;  he  is  the  spring  of  original  morbus, 
as  he  is  of  original  peccatum. 

8.  Morbus  depraves  and  corrupts  the  substance  of  the  body, 
but  is  not  itself  substance ;  it  is  not  a  creature  of  God,  but  a 
defect  in,  and  vitiation  of,  that  which  He  created.  The  body 
is  His  work,  morbus  the  result  of  sin. 


ANALOGIES  BETWEEN  MORBUS  AND   SIN.      395 

9.  Morbus  is  negatively  the  antithesis  to  health,  the  absence 
of  health  ;  and  secondly,  in  consequence  of  that  lack,  that  which 
was  originally  useful  and  pleasant  becomes  morbid  and  works 
misery.  Take,  for  example,  a  healthy  tootli ;  everything  in  it 
is  meant  for  use,  and  is  promotive  of  comfort.  Take  away  its 
healthy  state,  and  although  no  new  thing  is  created,  there  is 
misery  and  uselessness  in  place  of  its  former  healthy  condition  ; 
there  is  positive  pain  there. 

10.  Morbus  is  real  morbus,  vere  morbus,  before  it  comes  to 
symptom.  A  man  is  sick  before  he  shows  himself  sick,  and  he 
shows  himself  sick  because  he  is  sick.  He  may  be  sick  for  a 
time,  and  neither  he  nor  others  be  aware  of  it.  The  symptom 
is  not  the  morbus,  nor  the  cause  of  it,  but  the  result,  the  effect, 
the  revelation  of  the  morbus.  The  fever  is  before  the  fever- 
heat  ;  the  small-pox  before  the  pustule ;  the  obstruction  of  the 
pores  before  the  cough  ;  there  is  morbus  originis  in  the  body 
before  there  is  morbus  manifestus  in  it. 

11.  Morbus  may  be  wholly  independent  of  any  act  of  ours. 
We  may  have  morbus  because  our  neighbor  has  it.  A  child 
may  have  it  because  the  father  has  it,  or  the  father  may  con- 
tract it  from  the  child.  One  has  typhoid-fever  or  small-pox, 
and  another  takes  it  from  him.  There  is  endemic  morbus,  epi- 
demic morbus,  contagious  morbus,  infectious  morbus.  With 
the  mystery  of  disease  staring  us  in  the  face  in  the  physical 
world,  it  becomes  us  to  be  humble  and  reverent  in  regard  to 
God's  teachings  in  reference  to  the  mystery  of  His  permission 
of  hereditary  sin  in  the  moral  w^orld. 

12.  Morbus,  not  only  as  a  generic  tendency,  but  in  specific 
shape,  may  be  hereditary.  There  is  an  Erb-seuche  as  well  as 
an  Erbsiinde.  When  the  skeptic  shall  thoroughly  sound  the 
mystery  of  that  arrangement  of  Providence  by  which  the  child 
of  consumptive  parents  may  be  born  not  only  with  a  tendency 
to  consumption,  but  with  actual  consumption,  then  may  he 
with  more  show  of  reason  ask  us  to  sound  for  him  the  fathom- 
less depths  of  the  Divine  permission  of  hereditary  sin  in  our 
world. 

13.  Morbus  in  some  forms  defies  all  the  curative  powers  of 
nature  and  of  art.     Men  will  be  so  sitjk  as  to  die,  despite  all 


396  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

ori2:inal  energies  of  the   constitution,  all   medicines,  and  all 
physicians. 

14.  Whatever  be  the  philosophy  of  morbus,  the  great  facts 
are  indisputable.  Men  may  wrangle  as  to  how  and  why  it  is, 
but  they  cannot  deny  that  it  is.  They  may  believe  that  they 
relieve  difficulties  by  abandoning  the  old  phraseology  and  coin- 
ing new  ;  but  all  the  resources  of  language  leave  the  facts  and 
the  difficulties  substantially  where  they  were.  The  medical 
theorists  have  new  names,  new  theories,  new  medicines,  but 
men  have  continued  to  die,  and  will  continue  to  die.  The  theo- 
logical charlatan  may  try  a  new  nomenclature,  and  assail  w^ith 
sugar-  and  rose-water  what  the  old  doctors  treated  with  the 
most  potent  medicines,  but  sin  will  reveal  itself  in  the  world 
with  the  old  signs  of  virulence,  and,  trifled  with,  will  w^ork 
death. 

15.  He  w^ho  has  false  views  of  morbus,  is  not  likely  to  obtain 
a  thorough  cure  of  it.  His  determination  to  call  a  plague- 
boil  a  pimple,  will  not  make  it  a  pimple ;  tubercular  consump- 
tion is  not  a  trifling  cough,  nor  a  cancer  a  corn,  because  men 
may  think  them  such.  We  can  neither  think  facts  out  of 
being,  nor  into  being. 

16.  Morbus  is  ordinarily  relieved  by  means.  Sickness  can- 
not heid  itself,  nor  is  it  ordinarily  healed  by  miracle. 

17.  The  wrong  remedy  will  not  cure  morbus,  however  sin- 
cere the  misguided  physician  may  be  in  recommending  it,  and 
the  deluded  patient  in  using  it.  It  is  the  dream  of  a  Ration- 
alism close  upon  Deism,  that  error  is  practically  as  good  as 
truth,  if  a  man  heartily  believes  it  to  be  the  truth ;  that  you  can 
substitute  arsenic  for  salt  with  safety,  if  you  believe  it  to  be 
Bait.  The  kingdom  of  nature  and  of  grace  are  both  under  law. 
Things  will  be  done  after  God's  ordinance,  or  they  will  not  be 
done  at  all. 

.    ,    .      .  The  analo2:ies   between   Vitium    and   Orii^inal 

Analogies      be-  o  ^ 

tween  vitimn  and    Siu  arc  also  uiauy  and  obvious. 

Original  Sin.  1.  Vitium  is  universal.     Every  body  has   some 

defect.     Thrasea  (Pliny's   Epistles   8,  22,)  was  wont    to  say, 

"Qui  vitia  doit,  homines  odit,"  "  Who  hates  faults,  hates  all 

mankind." 


ANALOGIES  BETWEEN   VITIUM  AND   SIN.       397 

2.  Yitium  in  some  of  its  forms  is,  as  iS'onius  says,  "  perpetua 
et  insanabilis  atqiie  irrevocabilis  causa,"  "  a  cause  which 
works  always,  beyond  liealing  and  beyond  revoke." 

3,  and  last.  Vitium  is  privative,  yet  the  privation  is  pro- 
ductive of  positive  misery.  Blindness  is  not  a  thing,  but  the 
want  of  a  thing.  When  the  first  blindness  took  place,  there 
was  no  creation  of  blindness,  but  the  mere  privation  of  that 
light  whicli  was  given  in  the  first  creation  :  The  absence  of  an 
arm  is  not  a  thing,  but  the  defect  of  a  thing  ;  God  did  not  create 
blindness  or  armlessness,  nor  does  a  man  become  a  creator  by 
making  himself  or  his  child  armless  or  sightless.  These  condi- 
tions are  in  themselves  but  negations,  yet  what  positive  ill  results 
from  these  negations.  The  ignorance  of  the  blind,  the  helpless- 
ness of  the  maimed,  result  from  these  privative  vitia.  Though 
blindness  be,  _per  se,  not  something,  but  nothing,  though  the 
want  of  an  arm  be  nothing,  the  deep  grief  is  that  where  some- 
thing should  be  there  is  nothing.  The  sophistry,  therefore,  that 
mere  negation,  mere  defect,  is  inoperative,  is  exposed  even  by 
nature,  for  lack  of  operation  is  often  the  greatest  of  ills,  and  to 
say  that  because  original  sin  is  not  substance  or  essence  there 
can  be  no  result  from  it,  is  in  the  last  degree  shallow  and  false. 
This  point  has  been  felicitously  stated  by  Melanchthon :  ''  It  is 
useful  to  mark  clearly  the  difference  between  the  things  created 
by  God,  and  sin,  which  is  the  disturbance  or  confusion  of  the 
divine  order:  hence  it  is  rightly  said.  Sin  is  a  defect  or  pri- 
vation.  .  .  And  here  lies  the  answer  to  the  sophistical  question, 
Inasmuch  as  a  defect  is  nothing,  that  is,  is  not  a  positive  thing, 
how  can  God  be  angry  at  nothing?  The  answer  is,  there  is 
a  broad  distinction  between  nothing  ])rivative  and  nothing  negative. 
For  nothing  taken  in  the  privative  sense  requires  a  subject^  and 
is  a  certain  destruction  in  that  subject,  on  account  of  ^vhich 
that  subject  is  rejected,  as  the  ruins  of  an  edifice  are  a  destruc- 
tion or  scattering  of  parts  in  the  mass.  Thus  Original  Sin  is 
a  defilement  and  confusion  of  the  parts  of  man,  and  God  hates 
it,  and  on  account  of  it  is  angered  at  the  subject.  In  disease 
nothing  has  the  sense  of  jDvivation^  inasmuch  as  the  subject  re- 
mains, and  disease  is  a  certain  disturbance  in  the  subject.  The 
wounded  man  looks  upon  his  w^ound  sorrowfully,  and  know^a 


398  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

that  the  wound  is  not  nothing  negatively^  but  that  the  parts  are 
torn.  Thus  Paul  grieved  when  he  saw  the  crimes  of  ¥ero, 
for  he  knew  that  they  were  not  nothing  negatively^  but  the 
awful  ruins  of  the  work  of  God."  * 

The  Thesis  on  the  introductory  terms  to  which  we  have  been 
dwellins:,  asserts  that  this  disease  or  fault  of  oriorin,  this  inborn 
plague  and  hereditary  sin  is  truly  and  really  sin.  The  vere 
and  wahrhaftiglich  are  opposed  : 

1.  To  the  false,  incorrect,  or  fictitious  ; 

2.  To  the  verbal. 

To  the  1st  they  are  opposed,  as  the  true ;  to  the  2d,  as  the 
real  When  we  affirm  that  original  sin  is  truly  and  really 
sin,  we  affirm  the  doctrine  of  the  Church : 

1.  Against  those  who  deny  that  human  nature  is  in  any 
respect  different  from  the  condition  in  w^hich  it  was  at  its 
origin  ;  who  deny  that  original  sin  exists. 

2.  Over  against  those  who  concede  that  there  is  a  real  defect 
in  human  nature  since  the  Fall,  but  who  deny  that  this  defect 
is  sin. 

3.  Over  against  those  who  concede  that  original  sin  is,  in 
some  sense,  sin,  but  who,  either  in  terms,  or  virtually,  deny 
that  it  is  truly  and  really  sin.     Over  against  these  is  affirmed : 

1.  The  true  and  real  existence  of  original  sin. 

2.  The  true  and  real  sinfulness  of  its  character. 

The  doctrine  is  asserted  against  its  deniers,  and  defined 
against  its  corrupters. 

Of  original  sin  we  say: 

1.  It  is ;  2.  It  is  sin ;  3.  It  is  truly  and  really  sin. 

In  these  words  lies  a  grand  distinctive  feature  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  as  opposed  to  the  Pelagians  or  Pelagianizing 
tendencies  of  a  large  part  of  the  Roman  communion,  and  of 
Zwingli,  as  well  as  l)y  anticipation  of  more  recent  heresies. 
In  these  words  is  the  very  heart  of  just  views  of  original  sin: 

We  argue  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin  : 

1.  Because  it  has  the  relations  and  connections  of  sin. 

*Loc.  Thcolog.  ed.  1545.  Opera.  Witteburg.  1580.  Fol.  vol.  i.  103.  Chemnitii- 
Loc.  Theol.  1058.  Fol.  i.  128.  Corp.  Reformator.  xxi.  646.  This  striking  die- 
iinction  is  not  drawn  in  anj'  of  the  earlier  editions  of  the  Loci. 


THE  RELATIONS  AND    CONNECTIONS.  399 

2.  It  lias  the  name  and  synonyms  of  sia. 

3.  It  has  the  essence  of  sin. 

4.  It  has  the  attributes  of  sin. 

5.  It  does  the  acts  of  sin. 

6.  It  incurs  the  penalties  of  sin. 

7.  It  needs  the  remedies  of  sin. 

8.  Consequently,  and  finally,  it  is  conformed  to  a  true  defini- 
tion of  sin. 

1.  We  argue  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin  hecause  its 
RELATIONS  and  CONNECTIONS  are  those  of  sin.  One  i.Tiie relations 
of  our  great  old  divines*  adopting  a  distinction  -"'^ -"n-^--- 
made  by  Bonaventura,  says,  "  Sin  is  wrought  in  three  ways : 

"  When  person  corrupts  nature,  as  was  done  by  Adam  and 
Eve." — Two  persons  corrupted  their  own  nature,  and  all  human 
nature  with  it. 

"  When  nature  corrupts  persons,  as  in  the  propagation  of 
original  sin." — The  nature  of  the  parents  corrupts  the  child 
who  is  born  of  them. 

"When  person  corrupts  person,  as  in  actual  sin." — The  in- 
fluence of  one  person  over  another  by  example,  by  corrupting 
words,  and  other  ways,  leads  man  into  acts  of  sin. 

"  At  the  beginning,  actual  sin  took  the  precedence,  and 
original  sin  followed  it  ;  now,  original  sin  takes  the  precedence, 
and  actual  sin  follows  it."  As  original  sin,  however,  is  pre- 
supposed as  the  internal  force  which  opens  itself  in  actual  sin, 
its  relations  are  very  direct,  even  with  the  forms  of  origin 
which  can  in  any  sense,  though  but  ideally,  be  separated  from 
its  own.  It  is  begotten  of  sin,  and  hence  is  of  necessity  of  the 
nature  of  its  parent,  and  therefore  truly  sin.  It  is  the  begetter 
of  sin,  and  hence  is  of  the  nature  of  its  child,  and  therefore 
truly  sin,  for  in  nothing  can  a  thing  be  more  truly  this  or  that, 
than  in  its  nature.  It  is  the  true  child  of  true  sin  ;  the  true 
parent  of  true  sin,  and  hence  is  itself  true  sin.  Alike  then  in 
the  relations  and  connections  of  its  Genesis  and  of  its  Revela- 
tion, original  sin  is  truly  sin. 

2.  Original  sin,  we  argue  further,  is  truly  sin,  because  it  has 
the  NAME  and  synonyms  of  sin.     It  receives  the  names  and  syn- 

*  Quenstedt,  Tlieologia  Dogmatico-Polemica,  I  Vol.  col.  914. 


400  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

onyms  of  sin  in  the  Word  of  God.  Psalms  li.  5,  "In  sin  did 
my  mother  conceive  me,"  where  David  speaks  not  of  the  sin 
of  his  mother,  but  of  a  sin  pertaining  to  hinjself,  and  regards 
his  moral  condition,  which  he  calls  sin,  as  antecedent  to  his 

2.  The  name  birtli  —  and  as  beginning  with  the  beginning  of  his 
and  synonyms,  bcinor.*  So  the  German  of  the  Confession :  "  In  Sun- 
den  empfangen,'''  E,om.  v.  12,  "By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for 
that  all  have  sinned."  Here  the  generic  moral  state  of  all  of 
our  race  is  considered  as  sin.  "  Sin  dwelleth  in  me."  "  In  me, 
that  is  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  "The  law  of  sin 
which  is  in  my  members."  "  Let  not  sin  reign  in  your  mortal 
body."  Psalm  li.  5,  "I  was  shapen  in  iniquity.^''  John  iii.  6, 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh J^  In  these  passages 
original  sin  is  called  "  sin,"  "  iniquity,"  and  the  "  flesh." 

In  the  phraseology  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  of  the  Re- 
formers, of  the  Confessions  of  all  pure  Churches,  of  the  pro- 
foundest  later  theologians,  as  well  as  of  private  Christians,  the 
names  and  synonyms  of  sin  are  confessedly  applied  to  original 
sin. 

When  men  profess  to  believe  in  the  reality  of  that  which  is 
called  original  sin,  yet  object  to  the  term,  they  have  failed  to 
And  or  invent  another  term  as  expressive  and  less  open  to  ob- 
jection. In  the  very  act  of  opposing  the  doctrine  that  original 
sin  is  truly  sin,  they  drift  into  the  use  of  terms  whose  natural 
force  involves  that  it  is  truly  sin.  If  a  general  consciousness 
ever  embodied  itself  in  the  unhesitating  application  of  a  term, 
then  does  the  name  of  original  sin  prove  that  it  is  truly  sin. 

3.  It  has  the  essence  of  sin,  w^hich  is  deviation  from  the  will  of 

God.  In  physical,  irrational,  or  non-moral  nature, as  such,  there 

can  be  no  deviation  from  the  will  of  God.     To  deviate  from 

His  will,  personal  will  is  necessary.     Hence  all  de- 

3.  The  essence.         ^       ^  ^  ... 

viation  from  God's  will  is  sin,  and  all  sin  is  devia- 
tion from  His  will.  When  matter  is  said  to  be  perverted  from  its 
right  use  by  the  corrupt  will,  it  is  still  true  that,  as  matter,  it 
obeys  the  law  under  w^hich  God  has  placed  it.     Fire  is  not 

*  The  CliaLJee  paraphrase  rendei-s  Yahhara  by  a  yet  more  radical  term  :  im- 
prsDgnat  a  est. 


ESSENCE.  401 

deviating  from  the  will  of  God  in  burning,  tliough  it  surrounds 
and  consumes  the  body  of  Kuss.  All  the  deviation  from  God's 
will,  and  all  the  sin,  is  in  the  will  of  devils  and  men,  which  has 
brought  the  martyr  to  the  stake.  Whatever  is  not  in  accordance 
with  His  will,  has  in  it  the  essence  of  sin.  But  not  only  conscious 
sins,  but  that  condition  of  nature  also  in  which  they  originate, 
\\  the  result,  not  of  God's  will,  but  of  the  abuse  of  the  will  of  the 
creature.  Whatever  exists  of  which  God  cannot  be  said  to  be 
the  author,  is  sinful.  But  God  is  not  the  author  either  of  the 
fall  of  Satan,  the  temptation  and  lapse  of  Adam,  the  corrup- 
tion of  his  nature,  or  of  the  consequent  defect  of  righteousness, 
and  the  evil  desire  inherited  in  human  nature.  Hence  all  of 
these  have  in  them  the  essence  of  sin. 

We  ask,  is  the  moral  condition  in  which  man  is  born  in 
conformity  with  the  w^ill  of  God,  or  in  conflict  with  it  ?  If  it 
be  in  conformity  with  it,  it  is  not  depravity  —  it  is  a  good  thing. 
If  it  is  a  deviation  from  it,  it  is  not  depravity  merely,  but 
truly  sin.  There  is  no  logical  consistency  at  any  point  between 
the  extremest  Pelagianism  and  the  strictest  adhesion  to  the 
faith  of  the  Church  on  this  point. 

!N'ot  only,  however,  is  original  sin  essentially  sin,  but  it  is 
such  preeminently.  It  might  be  questioned  whether  a  seed  is 
essentially  vegetable,  because  in  it,  undeveloped,  none  of  the 
obvious  distinctive  characteristics  of  vegetation  meet  the  eye ; 
so  that  a  grain  of  mustard-seed  might  be  mistaken  for  a  grain 
of  sand,  and  a  skilful  imitation  of  an  acorn  actually  be 
regarded  as  an  acorn.  But  the  answer  could  be  truly  made 
that  not  only  is  the  seed  vegetable  in  its  essence,  but  preem- 
inently so,  as  it  is  the  necessary  presupposition  to  all  other  veg- 
etable existence  ;  enfolds  in  it  all  vegetable  capacity  ;  determines 
all  vegetable  character.  The  nature  of  its  potencies  makes  the 
vegetable  world. 

And  thus  in  the  infant  the  dim  traces  of  moral  character 
can  be  easily  overlooked.  Sceptical  sciolism  may  maintain 
that  there  is  nothing  discernible  in  an  infant  which  marks  it, 
any  more  than  a  kitten  or  a  lamb,  as  a  personal  and  moral  agent ; 
nevertheless,  it  has  a  moral  nature^  which  is  to  reveal  itself  in 
moral  character.     That  moral  nature  is  marked  by  a  defect  and 

26 


402  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

an  evil  propension  which  will  aiFect  the  w^iole  of  its  spiritual 
life,  and  that  defect  and  propension  have  in  them  the  essential 
element  of  sin  ;  they  are  not  in  conformity  w^ith  the  will  of 
God. 

This  inborn  something,  which  is  not  in  conformity  with  the 
will  of  God,  is  related  to  temptation,  incitement,  and  the 
power  of  example,  as  the  seed  is  related  to  the  soil,  the  dew 
and  the  sunshine  which  evolve  it  into  germ,  tree,  flower,  and 
fruit.  It  may  be  affirmed  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  which 
has  its  parallels  so  often  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  its 
course  also  is,  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn 
in  the  ear. 

The  question  here,  to  give  it  shape  from  our  figure,  is  not, 
*'  Is  a  seed  truly  a  tree?"  but,  "  Is  it  truly  vegetable  ?  "  "  Has 
it  really  the  same  nature  as  the  tree?  "  And  the  reply  is,  It 
has.  Xay,  rather  the  tree  is  but  a  phenomenon  of  the  seed  ; 
it  is  itself  the  parent  seed  developed,  and  its  own  perfect 
potency  ends  in  a  seed.  If  the  first  seed  that  ever  ripened  was 
a  phenomenon  of  the  first  tree,  this  was  because  the  first  tree 
was  a  direct  creation,  not  a  mediate  growth  ;  but  under  the  law 
of  mediate  growth,  the  seed  is  the  proper  presupposition  of 
the  tree  —  the  condition  of  its  nature.  On  the  vegetable  seed 
depends  the  vegetable  nature.  If  you  may  call  a  seed  yet  un- 
grown  truly  vegetable,  then  you  may  call  the  seminal  sin  yet 
ungrown  truly  sin.  Original  sin,  therefore,  has  not  only  the 
essence  of  sin,  but  it  has  that  essence  by  preeminence.  Nay, 
it  may  be  said  to  be  that  essence,  and  relatively  to  it  all 
other  sins  may  be  said  to  be  in  some  sense  phenomenal,  deriva- 
tive, and  dependent.  There  is  an  important  sense,  therefore, 
in  which  even  beyond  the  sins  of  act,  original  sin  may  be 
affirmed  to  be  tvwly  sin.     It  is  not  a  sin,  it  is  sin. 

4.  We  argue  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin  because  it  has  the 

ATTRIBUTES  of  sin. 

Is   sin    EVIL  ?    so  is   original    sin.     *'  God    saw    that   every 
4.  The  attii-  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  man's  heart  was 

hntosofsin.        Q|3]y  ^^11  continually."  Gen.  vi.  5. 

Is  sin   UNCLEAN?  80  is  original    sin.     ''  Who  can    bring   a 

clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  f  not  one."  Job  xiv.  4.    ''  What 


THE  ACTS   OF  SIN.  403 

is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean?  and  he  which  is  horn  of  a 
woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous  ?  "  Job  xv.  14. 

Is  sin  ABOMINABLE  and  loathsome?  so  is  original  sin. 
"  The  heavens  are  not  clean  in  His  (God's)  sight.  IIow  much 
more  abominable  and  filthy  is  man,  which  drinketh  iniquity 
like  water."  Job  xv.  15,  16. 

Is  s'u  UNRIGHTEOUS  ?  SO  is  Original  sin.  ''  What  is  he  which 
is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous  ?  "  Job  xv.  14. 

Is  sin  IMPURE?  so  is  original  sin.  "The  stars  are  not  pure 
in  His  (God's)  sight,  how  much  less  man,  that  is  a  worm." 
Job  XXV.  4.  Here  the  contrast  is  between  the  highest  purity 
imaged  in  the  stars,  and  the  deepest  corruption  embodied  in 
man,  who,  not  in  physical  characteristics,  nor  in  intellect,  but  in 
moral  nature,  is  a  worm  before  the  judgment  of  God — "  man," 
paraphrases  the  Targum,  "  in  life  a  reptile,  in  death  a  worm." 

i).  We  argue  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin,  because  it  does 
the  ACTS  of  sin. 

"  When  we  were  in  the  flesh"  ("  that  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh"),  "  the  motions  of  sin  which  were  by  ^  The  acts  of 
the  law,  did  work  in  our  members  to  hiing  forth  sin. 
fruit  unto  death."  Rom.  vii.  5.  "  So  then  with  the  mind  I 
myself  serve  the  law  of  God ;  but  with  the  flesh ,  the  law  of 
sin."  Rom.  vii.  25.  "  The  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit."  Gal. 
V.  17.  "  ^ow  the  icorks  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are 
these  :  Adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idol- 
atry, witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife, 
seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revellings, 
and  such  like."  Gal.  v.  19-21.  The  works  of  the  flesh  are  not 
works  done  in  the  flesh,  that  is  in  the  body,  but  works  wrought 
by  the  flesh,  that  is  by  the  corrupt  nature  characteristic  of  all 
that  are  born  of  the  desh.  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can 
be."  Rom.  viii.  7.  "  If  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I 
that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  Rom.  vii.  20.  "  I  see 
another  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of 
my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin 
which  is  in  my  members."  Rom.  vii.  23.  "The  spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  us  lusteth  to  envy."     "Let  not  sin  reign  in  your 


404  CONSERVATIVE   REFORM  ATI  0  K 

mortal  body,  that  ye  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof." 
Rom.  vi.  12. 

6.  We  argue  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin  because  it  incurs 
the  PENALTIES  of  sin. 

"  How  then  can  man  be  justified  with  God  ?  or  how  can  he 

be  dean  that  is  born  of  a  woman?"    "  The  stars  are  not  imre  in 

His  sight  ;  how  7nitchless\nd.x\^  that  is  a  worm?"  Job  xxv.  4,5, 

6.     "  When  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  motions  of  sins,  which 

,..     were   by  the  law,  did   work  in    our   members  to 

6.  The  penalties  •/  ' 

of^in.  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death/'  Rom.  vii.  5.     "  0, 

wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
body  of  this  death  ?  "  Rom.  vii.  24.  "  God  .  .  condemned  sin  in 
the  flesh."  Rom.  viii.  3.  "  To  be  carnally  minded  is  deaths 
Rom.  viii.  6.  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned."  Rom.  v.  12.  ''  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of 
Adam's  transs^ression."  Rom.  v.  14.  "  Throutrh  the  offence 
of  one,  many  (oi  poUoi,  '  the  many,'  that  is  '  mankind')  be 
dead."  Rom.  v.  15.  "  The  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemna- 
tion/' Rom.  V.  16.  "  By  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by 
one."  Rom.  v.  17.  "  Judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condem- 
nation/'' Rom.  V.  18.  "They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot 
please  God."  Rom.  viii.  8.  "  We  all  were  by  nature  the 
children  of  ivrath,  even  as  others."  Eph.  ii.  3. 

In  these  passages  original  sin  comes  before  us  in  three 
aspects  as  to  penalty  : 

1.  As  punished  by  the  penalty  which  comes  upon  the  sins 
of  act,  which  original  sin  originates.  The  stroke  which  is 
aimed  at  them,  of  necessity,  strikes  it  also. 

2.  As  punished  together  with  the  sin  of  act.  Each  is  aimed 
at,  and  each  is  smitten  simultaneously. 

3.  As  subject  to  punishment  in  itself  antecedent  to  and  sep- 
arate from  all  sin  in  act.  It  bears  the  penalty  which  comes  bi/ 
the  sin  of  act ;  it  bears  the  penalty  which  it  meets  in  con- 
junction with  the  sin  of  act,  and  it  is  subject  to  punishment  in 
itself  considered.  The  range  of  penalty  in  which  it  is  involved, 
is,  in  one  respect,  larger  than  that  of  actual  sin  ;  for  while,  in 


THE  REMEDY.  405 

no  case,  can  the  penalty  fall  on  actual  sin  without  involving 
original  sin,  there  is  one  case,  the  third,  in  which  it  could  fall 
upon  original  sin,  where  there  was  as  yet  no  sin  of  act. 

If  penalty  then  can  mark  its  character,  original  sin  is  truly 
sin. 

7.  We  argue  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin,  because  it  needs 
the  REMEDY  of  sin. 

"  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God  !  "  Psalm  li.  12.  "  Who 
shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?     I 
thank   God,   through   Jesus   Christ    our    Lord."  ^^i^— 'y- 
Rom.  vii.  24. 

This  remedy  is  needed.  1,  As  to  its  essence ;  2,  as  to  its 
author;  and  3,  as  to  its  means.  "  Putting  off  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ."  Col.  ii.  11. 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit." 
John  iii.  3,  5,6.  "  Christ  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  Himself 
for  it ;  that  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing 
of  water  by  the  word."  Eph.  v.  25,  26. 

1.  The  texts  we  have  cited  show  who  need  the  remedy  of  sin  ; 
to  wit,  all  human  beings.  "  Except  a  man^^^  that  is,  a  human 
being  —  every  human  being,  old  or  young.  Furthermore,  all 
that  is  born  of  the  flesh,  to  wit,  every  human  being,  old  or 
young.  Furthermore,  in  regard  to  Eph.  v.  25,  "  Christ  loved 
the  Church,"  etc.,  it  may  be  said  :  Children  are  either  a  part  of 
the  Church,  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are  not  of  the  Church, 
they  are  not  loved  approvingly,  and  have  no  interest  in  Christ's 
work,  nor  application  of  it.  But  this  no  one  will  maintain. 
Then  they  are  in  the  Church  ;  but  if  in  the  Church  they  are, 
according  to  St.  Paul,  in  common  with  others,  sanctified,  and 
of  course  regenerate,  washed  with  water,  and  reached  by  the 
word.  But  as  the  word  cannot  reach  an  infant  didactically,  it 
must  reach  it  sacramentally.  Infants  then  need,  and  receive 
the  remedy  of  sin,  and  as  they  have  original  sin  only,  it  must 
need  the  remedy  of  sin. 

2.  These  passages  show  that,  as  to  the  essence  of  the  remedy 


406  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

of  sill,  it  is  needed  by  original  sin  ;  to  wit :  The  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  ;  the  being  born  again  ;  the  being 
sanctified  and  cleansed. 

3.  These  passages  show  that  original  sin  needs  the  remedy 
of  sin  as  to  its  author — He  who  acquires  it,  Christ;  He  who 
applies  it,  —  the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  general,  God. 

4.  These  passages  show  that  original  sin  needs  the  remedy 
of  sin  as  to  its  means. 

a.  The  circumcision  of  Christy  i.  e.  Christian  circumcision  ;  to 
wit,  that  w^iich  in  the  Christian  system  answers  to,  and  fulfils 
what  was  shadowed  by  circumcision  under  the  Jewish  system, 
to  wit,  Holy  Baptism,  which  is  the  washing  of  water  con- 
joined with  the  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  absence  of 
any  one  of  which  three  elements  there  is  no  baptism. 

b.  The  Word  of  God:  didactically,  that  is,  by  preaching, 
teaching,  reading,  meditation  ;  and  the  same  word  set  forth 
and  sealed  by  the  sacraments.  Without  these  things,  to  wit, 
Baptism  and  the  AYord,  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  cannot 
be  put  ofl:';  but  the  body  of  the  sins  involves  original  sin. 

8.  We  argue,  finally,  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin,  because  it 
is  conformed  to  a  true  definition  of  sin.     AVhen  the  inspired 
8  The  defini-  wrltcrs  Call  the  moral  taint  of  our  nature  sin,  they 
*'""•  give  evidence  in  this,  that  as  they  define  the  term, 

it  is  applicable  to  that  taint.  Their  idea  of  sin  is  of  something 
which  man  has  ;  something  which  dicells  in  him  ;  something 
which  is  separate  in  ideal  from  his  consciousness  not  only  of 
his  own  essence,  but  from  the  consciousness  of  his  truer  nature, 
his  more  real  self. 

This  sin  is  something  inborn,  wdiich  is  first  to  be  pardoned, 
then  controlled,  and  finally  annihilated  by  a  new  birth,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  by  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  entrance 
on  the  glory  of  heaven,  by  the  mighty  power  by  which  a  risen 
Saviour  is  to  raise  these  vile  bodies  and  make  them  like  His 
own  body.  These  ideas  underlie  or  rise  upon  every  Kew  Tes- 
tament doctrine,  duty,  and  hope. 

Rationalism  has  made  it  a  reproach  that  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  evangelical  system. 
We   accept   the   reproach   as   in  fact  a   concession    that   the 


THE  DEFINITION.  407 

evangelical  system  grounds  itself,  where  alone  a  just  system  in 
regard  to  human  restoration  can  be  grounded ;  for  the  first 
question,  when  disease  is  to  be  cured,  is.  What  is  that  dis- 
ease ?  Is  it  so  trifling  as  to  need  no  physician  ?  Can  a  man 
heal  it  himself?  Will  it  heal  itself  simply  by  the  general 
energy  of  the  system?  or  is  it  radical  true  disease,  mortal  in  its 
tendency?  Does  it  require  for  its  treatment  a  physician  of  the 
highest  order,  and  remedies  of  the  most  exquisite  adaptation 
and  potency  ?  To  all  of  these  questions,  with  characteristic 
simplicity  and  practical  force,  our  great  Confession  replies, 
when  it   says  :  "  Original  sin  is  truly  sin." 

If  it  be  asked,  in  what  sense  did  our  confessors  use  the  word 
sin  ?  we  reply,  in  what  we  have  seen  and  shown  to  be  its 
scriptural  sense.  Is  it  asked  what  did  they,  and  what  do  we, 
regard  as  its  scriptural  sense  ?  we  reply,  the  language  of  the 
Confession  tells  us  most  explicitly  what  they  meant  by  true  sin, 
and  by  that  Confession  in  firm  faith  we  abide.  Yet  it  may 
not  be  useless  to  give,  as  a  further  illustration  of  its  meaning, 
the  definition  of  sin  by  Melanchthon,  not  only  because  of  his 
relation  to  the  Confession  as  its  composer,  but  yet  more  because 
in  his  purest  and  happiest  period,  his  definitions  were  as  sound 
in  their  substance  as  they  were  discriminating  and  felicitous  in 
their  form.  It  may  be  doubted  whether,  before  Melanchthon, 
in  his  Loci  of  1535,  any  successful  attempt  had  been  made  to 
define  sin  generically.  The  definitions  of  the  fathers  are  either 
of  specific  sin,  original  or  actual,  or  are  too  vague  for  the  pur- 
poses of  science.  Pelagius  tried  to  show,  from  some  of  Augus- 
tine's definitions  of  sin,  that  original  sin  is  not  really  sin.  What 
Augustine  had  said  of  sins  of  act^  Pelagius  applied  to  sin  of 
nature.  Melanchthon,  in  his  Loci  of  the  Second  Era,"^  (1535- 
1541),  says:  "Sin  in  Holy  Scripture  does  not  merely  mean 
something  done  (factum  aliquod),  but  it  signifies  also  a  perpet- 
uated fault  (perpetuum  vitium),  that  is  a  corruption  of  nature 
conflicting  with  the  law  of  God.  Sin  therefore,  generically 
taken,  is  a  perpetuated  fault,  or  act,  conflicting  with  the  law  of 
God.  Sin  is  divided  into  original  and  actual."  In  the  Loci 
of  the  Third  Era  (1543-1559),  he  says  that  in  Scripture  the 

*  Corpus  Reformatorum.  xxi.  284,  378.     In  German  :   Do.  xxii.  159. 


408  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

name  "  sin  properly  signifies  any  thing  liable  (ream),  and  con- 
demned  by    God,  unless   remission    be  made.     This    general 
description    suits  both  original   and  actual  sin.     But  as  the 
definition    only   embraces   what   is   relative,   to   wit,  liability 
(reatus;,  the  mind  naturally  seeks  for  that  on  account  of  which 
man  is  liable  (reus)."    Melanchthon  then  gives  what  may  be  con- 
sidered the  standard  definition  of  sin  in  the  Lutheran  Theology. 
It  is  almost  verbally  the  definition  which,  first  endorsed  by 
Luther's  hearty  approbation,  and  by  our  divines  in  general, 
had  been  presented  in  opposition  to  Eck  at  the  Colloquy  at 
AVorms  in  1541,  and  runs  thus:  ''  Sin  is  either  a  defect  (defec- 
tus,  want,  lack,  failure,)  or  inclination,  or  act  conflicting  with 
the  law  of  God,  ofl:ending  God,  condemned  by  God,  and  mak- 
ing us  liable  (faciens  nos  reos)  to  eternal  wrath    and  eternal 
punishments,   had    not    remission    been    made."      '^  In    this 
definition,"    adds    Melanchthon,    in    the   Loci,  "  the  '  defect ' 
and  '  inclination'  correspond  with  original  sin  ;  the  '  act '  em- 
braces all  actual  sin,  internal  and  external."*     In  his  Defini- 
tions, f  he  repeats  the  same   idea   a  little  more  compactly. 
*'  Sin  is  whatever  conflicts  with  the  law  of  God  —  a  defect,  or 
inclination,  or  act  conflicting  with  the  law  of  God,  and  making 
the  creature  liable  (ream)  to  eternal  wrath,  unless  remission  be 
made  for  the  Mediator's  sake."  In  the  Examen  Ordinandorum,:!: 
the  definition  is  in  substance  the  same ;  the  most  remarkable 
difterence  is  in  the  closing  words :  "  And  fully  meriting  (com- 
merens)  eternal  wrath,  unless  remission   were  made   for   the 
Son,  the  Mediator's  sake." 

If  this  definition  of  sin  be  a  just  one,  then  original  sin  is 
truly  sin,  for  it  is,  as  we  have  shown,  a  defect,  and  an  inclina- 
tion in  conflict  with  the  law  of  God,  ofiending  God,  and  con- 
demned by  God. 

IX.  The  natural  consequence  of  this   original   sin  is  this, 
that  it  "condemns    and    brings  now  also    eternal 

Ninth    Thesis.      ,  ,        ,,         ,  ^  ♦- 

The  natural  con-  death  ;""  damuans  et  aflferens  nunc  quoque  Peter- 
sequence  of  orig-  ^^^   mortcm,"    "  uud    vcrdammc  .  .  uutcr   ewigen 

inul  sin. 

Gottes  Zorn." 
1.  The  best  key  to  the  meaning  of  this  declaration  is  found 

*  Corpus  Reformator.  xxi.  GOT.     f  Corp.  lief.  xxi.  1077.     +  Corp.  Ref.xxiii.  12. 


TRUTH  OF  TIII'JSIS— SCRIPTURE  EVIDENCE.      409 

in  the  XVII.  Swabach  Articles  of  Luther.  In  the  fourth  of 
these  articles  of  Luther,  are  these  words :  "  Original  sin  is  a 
true  real  sin,  and  not  merely  a  fault  or  a  blemish,  but  a  sin  of 
such  kind  as  ivould  condemn,  and  separate  eternally  g^,„^  ^^.^^^^.., 
from  God,  all  men  who  sprino;  from  Adam,  had  not  cai  illustrations 
Jesus  Christ  appeared  as  our  substitute,  and  taken 
upon  Himself  this  sin,  together  with  all  sins  which  result  from 
it,  and  by  His  sutFerings  made  satisfaction  therefor,  and  thus 
utterly  removed,  and  blotted  them  out  in  Himself,  as  in  Ps.  li., 
and  Rom.  v.  5.  is  clearly  written  of  this  sin." 

2.  The  fourth  Article  of  the  Swabach  series  is  evidently 
based  upon  the  fourth  of  the  Articles  prepared  at  the  Marburg 
Colloquy.  That  Article  says :  In  the  fourth  place,  we  believe 
that  original  sin  is  inborn,  and  inherited  by  us  from  Adam, 
and  had  not  Jesus  Christ  come  to  our  aid  by  his  death  and  life, 
we  must  have  died  therein  eternally,  and  could  not  have  come 
to  God's  kingdom  and  blessedness.^* 

3.  In  Melanchthon's  edition  of  the  Confession  in  German, 
published  in  1533,  the  part  of  the  Second  Article  now  under 
consideration,  reads  thus :  ''  This  inborn  and  original  sin  is 
truly  sin,  and  condemns  under  God's  eternal  wrath  all  who 
are  not  born  again  through  Baptism  and  faith  in  Christ, 
through  the  Gospel  and  Holy  Spirit. "f 

4.  In  Melanchthon's  Latin  edition  of  the  varied  Confession 
of  1540  and  1542,  occur  at  this  point  these  expressions :  "  Con- 
demned to  the  wrath  of  God  and  eternal  death."  "  Those 
defects  and  that  concupiscence  are  a  thing  criminal,  in  its  own 
nature  worthy  of  death.":]: 

1.  The  great  proposition  that  original  sin  condemns  and 
brings  now  also  eternal  death,  i.  e.  that,  left  to  its     tiio  scripture 

1         I        -i     •  T  evidence    of    the 

natural  consequences,  unchecked  m  any  way  by  truth  of  tiiexbe- 
God,  this  condemnation  and  death  would  be  the  «'=*• 
result,  is  already  involved  in  the  previous  Thesis.  The  present 
Thesis  was  meant  by  the  confessors  to  be  the  practical  infer- 
ence from  that,  and  that  Thesis  was  mainly  set  forth  in  order 
to  this,  and  the  emphasis  of  the  connection  is  this,  that  origi- 

*  Kudelbach's  Ref.  Luth.  u.  Union,  p.  62G. 

f  See  Weber's  ed.  Weimar,  1781.  J  Hase,  L.  S.,  p.  15. 


410  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

nal  sin  is  so  truly  sin  as  to  bring  its  last  and  most  fearful 
result,  the  wrath  and  condemnation  of  God,  and  eternal  death. 
If  original  sin  be  truly  sin,  then,  unchecked,  it  of  necessity 
involves  men  in  the  final  results  of  sin.  If  in  itself,  in  its  own 
essence  and  nature,  it  be  sin,  then  is  it  in  itself  criminal,  and 
in  its  own  nature  deserving  of  condemnation,  and  if  condemned 
at  all,  it  must,  apart  from  God's  grace,  be  condemned  forever, 
for  nature  h:;s  in  it  no  power  of  moral  self-recuperation.  The 
guilt  of  original  sin  would  expose  men  to  wrath,  and  its  help- 
lessness would  prevent  them  forever  from  rising  from  that 
wrath.  It  is  said  that  this  sin  ''now  also''  (nunc  quoque) 
"brino-s  eternal  death."  This  is  true  as  over  against  the  idea 
that  original  sin  brought  death  only  to  Adam,  not  to  all  his 
posterity  ;  or,  that  its  effect  was  confined  to  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion, so  that  Christ's  redemptory  work  per  se,  and  without 
the  application  of  its  benefits  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the 
appointed  means,  releases  the  whole  race  from  the  liability  per- 
taining to  original  sin  ;  or,  that  children,  because  they  are  born 
in  Christendom,  or  of  Christian  parents,  are  ipso  facto  free  from 
the  penalty.  "  Now  also^''  as  when  Adam  sinned  ;  "  now  also  " 
in  the  ^ew  Dispensation,  as  under  the  Old  ;  "  noiv  also,''  though 
Christ  has  "  been  made  a  propitiation,  not  only  for  original, 
but  for  all  the  actual  sins  of  men  "  (C.  A.  ill.  3) ;  ''now  also" 
that  there  is  a  Christendom  —  original  sin  "brings  eternal 
death  "  to  all  that  are  not  born  again. 

2.  With  this  general  presumption  the  language  of  Scripture 
strictly  agrees:  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  Rom.  vi.  23.  The 
Apostle,  in  these  words,  is  speaking  not  only  inclusively,  but 
by  preeminence,  of  the  inherent  sin  of  our  nature.  He  uses 
them  in  logical  connection  with  the  proposition,  "by  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  Rom.  v.  12. 
There  is  no  break  in  the  argument,  and  no  change  in  the  sense 
of  the  words.  It  is  confessed  that  the  sin  of  the  first  man 
reduced  all  the  race  to  the  condition  of  his  fallen  nature.  It 
follows,  then,  that  without  some  Divine  arrest  of  natural  conse- 
quence, the  penalty  which  attended  that  condition  in  him 
would  attend  it  in  us.     In  his  case  the  penalty  was  death,  so 


TRUTH  OF  THE  SIS- SCRIPTURE  EVIDENCE.      411 

then  must  it  be  in  ours.     Death  is  so  tenaciously  allied  to  sin 
that  only  God  can  separate  them. 

3.  ^Nor  is  the  moral  mystery  of  this  fact  so  deep  relatively 
as  it  is  often  regarded.  Death,  even  eternal  death,  as  the 
endurance  of  suffering,  is  not  essentially  so  fearful  a  thing  as 
sin.  It  would  be  more  in  keeping  with  divine  holiness  to  per- 
mit suffering  in  the  highest  degree  than  to  permit  sin  in  the 
least  degree.  Suffering  is  the  removal  of  a  lesser  good  than 
that  which  sin  removes,  and  the  bringing  in  of  a  lesser  evil 
than  that  which  sin  brings  in.  Those,  therefore,  who  admit 
that  the  natural  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  was,  that  sin 
entered  the  world,  and  fixed  itself  there  by  God's  permission, 
admit  a  far  greater  mystery  even  than  would  be  involved  in 
the  doctrine  that  God  would  allow  suffering  to  enter  an 
unfallen  world.  It  would  not  so  sorely  test  our  a  priori  antici- 
pation in  regard  to  God  to  know  that  He  allowed  suffering  in  an 
innocent  world,  as  to  know  that  He  allows  a  race  to  lose  its 
moral  innocence. 

If  we  had  been  told  that  in  one  of  the  stars  above  us  the 
people  are  innocent,  but  that  suffering  is  there ;  and  that  in 
another,  sin  came  in  (by  God's  permission)  to  destroy  the  inno- 
cence of  its  people,  the  former  statement  would  not  shock  our 
moral  sense,  or  create  the  same  difiiculty  of  harmonizing  the 
fact  with  God's  spotless  holiness  and  love  of  what  is  best  as 
the  latter  would.  But  the  case  is  even  stronger,  vastly  stronger, 
than  this  supposition  would  imply,  for  the  difficulty  that 
presses  us  is  not  that  suffering  exists  apart  from  sin,  but  that 
God,  having  allowed  sin  to  enter  the  world,  allowed  the  pen- 
alty of  death  to  follow  that  sin. 

Furthermore,  if  it  were  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible  that  the  race 
is  actually  lost  forever  because  of  original  sin,  the  mystery  of 
the  loss  would  be  a  less  mystery  than  that  of  the  permission  of 
sin.  Those  who  admit  the  existence  and  perpetuation  of 
original  sin,  admit  therefore  a  mystery  greater  than  the  doc- 
trine of  the  absolute  loss  of  this  sinful  race  in  consequence  of 
original  sin  would  be.  Here,  as  in  all  other  mysteries  of  Reve- 
iation,  Rationalism,  touching  with  its  plausible,  but  weak  hand, 
the  less  mystery  is  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  greater. 


412  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

4.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  is  not  that  this  loss  of 
the  race  actually  takes  place,  hut  that  original  sin,  unchecked 
by  God,  tends  to  this,  and  that  such,  apart  from  the  provisions 
of  his  grace  in  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  would  be  the  result. 
This  is  made  very  clear  hy  the  historical  citations  with  which 
our  discussion  of  this  Thesis  opens. 

5.  If  it  be  argued  that  it  is  impossible  before  any  moral  act, 
or  moral  choice,  a  human  creature  should  have  an  element 
whi(di,  unchecked  in  its  results,  would  produce  r^ea^A,  we  reply, 
that  it  would  much  more  seem  impossible  that  before  any 
moral  act,  or  moral  choice,  a  human  creature  should  have  an 
element  which,  not  only  unchecked,  but  with  the  mightiest 
checks,  actuall}'  results  in  conscious  sin,  and  is  itself  sin.  But 
the  latter  is  admitted  by  all  who  acknowledge  the  existence  of 
original  sin.  Much  more  then  should  they  admit  the  former. 
If  we  have  sin  without  an  act  of  our  will,  much  more  may  we 
have  death,  the  result  of  that  sin,  without  an  act  of  our  will. 

6.  We  see,  furthermore,  that  all  the  visible  results  of  Adam's 
sin  to  Adam  are  perpetuated  to  us  his  descendants,  and  this 
creates  a  powerful  presumption  that  the  invisible  results  of  that 
sin  are  also  perpetuated  to  us.  The  sorrows  of  Eve  are  the  sorrows 
of  her  daughters;  the  sorrows  of  Adam  are  the  sorrows  of  his 
sons  ;  the  curse  of  the  ground,  the  curse  of  temporal  death,  the 
exclusion  from  Paradise,  all  are  perpetuated  to  us.  But  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  God  allows  the  perpetuation  of  a  fellowship  in 
these  visible  results  of  Adam's  fall  is  the  principle  on  which  He 
would  also  allow  the  natural  tendency  of  our  sin  to  run  out  into 
the  invisible  results  of  the  Fall,  that  is,  into  eternal  death.  If 
God  had  no  right  to  allow  the  one  tendency.  He  had  no  right  to 
allow  the  other.  If  He  has  no  right  to  allow  Adam's  sin  to  bring 
upon  us,  apart  from  His  grace,  Adam's  spiritual  curse,  He  has 
no  right  to  allow  Adam's  sin  to  bring  upon  us  Adam's  tempo- 
ral curse.  But  confessedly.  He  does  the  latter,  and  has  the 
right  to  do  it ;  equally  therefore  has  He  the  right  to  do  the 
former,  and  if  he  does  not,  it  is  on  another  ground  than  that 
of  abstract  justice. 

It  is  not  anything  I  did  which   places  me  in  a  sorrowful 
world,  with   a  frail  body,  a  clouded  mind,  a  sad  heart,  and 


TRUTH  OF  THESIS— SCRIPTURE  EVIDENCE.      413 

under  subjection  to  death  ;  it  is  not  what  I  did,  but  what  lam, 
that  subjects  me  to  these,  and  I  am  what  I  am  because  I 
spring  from  Adam,  and  because  he  fell.  And  on  that  same  mys- 
terious, but  indubitable  principle,  that  what  we  arc,  as  well  as 
what  we  do,  determines  our  destiny,  God  might,  in  keeping  with 
the  justice  which  nature  reveals,  actually  subject  the  race  to  the 
eternal  destiny  which  was  the  result  of  sin,  apart  from  the 
Divine  arrest  of  its  tendency,  to  Adam.  Ko  human  logic,  which 
acknowledges  the  Providence  of  God  in  nature,  could  overthrow 
the  proposition,  even  were  it  absolute,  that  original  sin  brings 
eternal  death  to  the  race. 

7.  IS'or  is  the  language  too  strong,  that  original  sin  is,  in  its 
own  nature,  worthy  of  death.  The  word  of  God  teaches  that 
there  are  but  two  states  possible,  one  of  life,  the  other  of  death. 
Death  is  always  the  result  of  what  is  due.  Life  is  always  the 
result  of  grace.  Death  is  the  wages  of  sin.  Eternal  life  is  the 
gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Death  is  the  natural  due  then  of  every  human  creature  as  a 
creature  of  sin,  and  eternal  life  can  only  come  to  man  as  a 
gracious  and  free  gift.  Mature,  as  well  as  voluntary  character, 
is  regarded  as  properly  subject  to  penalty.  "  We  were  by 
nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others,"  Eph.  iii.  3,  that  is, 
we  who  are  Jews  by  nature,  by  our  natural  descent ;  we  who  are 
born  Jews  are,  by  our  natural  birth,  just  as  the  Gentiles  are,  sub- 
ject to  wrath,  because  in  both  cases  men  are  born  with  a  sinful 
nature.     Death  is  the  due  of  sin. 

8.  That  infants  are  included  is  not  only  necessary,  logically, 
and  involved  in  the  words  of  Paul  just  quoted,  but  is  expressly 
taught.  "  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them 
that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression." 

9.  The  results  of  Adam's  fall,  and  of  Christ's  mediation,  are 
represented  as  entirely  parallel  in  the  range  of  their  subjects  ; 
the  one  embraces  exactly  the  same  persons  as  the  other.  "  If 
Christ  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead."  "  As  in  Adam  all 
died,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,"  (in  the  resurrection). 
"  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  grace  of  God,  tasted  death  for 
every  man."     "  By  the  oftence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all 


414  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION 

men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  For  as  by 
one  man's  disobedience  many  (oi  polloi,  '  the  many,'  mankind,) 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many, 
('the  many,'  mankind,)  be  made  righteous." 

10.  The  reply  might  be  made,  however,  that  not  all  men  are 
actually  justified  through  Christ,  and  that  hence  the  parallel  is 
to  be  restricted,  and  that  not  all  men  are  necessarily  actually 
involved  in  the  death  of  sin.  But  in  fact  this  limitation  only 
makes  the  parallel  more  perfect,  j^ot  all  embraced  in  the 
ideal  of  Christ's  work  are  actually  saved,  because  the  work  is 
arrested  in  its  tendency  either  negatively  by  lack  of  the  means 
appointed  for  its  application,  or  positively  by  the  natural  will 
of  those  who  have  the  means,  but  resist  their  power.  So,  on 
the  other  hand,  not  all  embraced  in  the  ideal  of  sin's  work  are 
actually  lost,  because  that  work  is  arrested  on  God's  side  by 
the  means  appointed  as  its  antidote,  and  on  man's  side  by  the 
divinely  enlightened  will  of  those  who,  having  these  means,  do 
not  resist  their  power.  Nature,  so  to  speak,  undoes  Christ's 
work  in  the  one  case,  as  grace  undoes  sin's  work  in  the  other. 
God's  work  in  grace  in  the  one  case,  if  unarrested,  is  ample 
for  the  salvation  of  every  human  creature,  as  sin's  work,  in  the 
other  case,  if  unarrested,  is  ample  for  the  loss  of  every  human 
creature.  Thus  the  all-embracing  work  of  love  on  the  one 
hand,  freely  giving  life,  and  the  all-pervading  power  of  sin  on 
the  other,  meriting  death,  rest  in  the  same  generic  mode  of 
Divine  dealing.  Take  away  Christ,  and  every  human  creature 
dies  in  Adam  ;  take  away  Adam,  and  every  human  creature 
lives  in  Christ.  But  though  the  range  of  Adam's  work  and 
of  Christ's  work  be  the  same,  the  power  of  Christ's  work  tran- 
scends that  of  Adam's.  God's  love  in  Christ  outweighs  all. 
''  ISTot  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift."  (The  Apostle 
takes  a  new  point  of  view  :  he  had  shown  wherein  the  offence 
is  as  the  free  gift,  to  wit,  in  its  range ;  now  he  looks  at  a 
point  in  which  the  free  gift  transcends  the  offence.)  "For 
if  through  the  ofience  of  one,  many  ('the  many,'  man- 
kind,) be  dead,  lauch  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by 
grace,  which    is   by   one   man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath    abounded 


TENTH  THESIS.  415 

unto  many."  "Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more 
abound." 

Tlius  the  cloud  of  death  which  hung  upon  the  horizon  of 
our  world  in  its  morning  parts  before  the  beaming  of  the  Sun 
of  Righteousness,  and  then,  transfigured  by  His  ray,  billows 
around  His  rising,  purpling  in  His  glory.  Nothing  can  mag- 
nify His  brightness,  but  this  cloud  diftuses  it.  That  cloud  lifts 
itself  more  and  more  with  the  ascending  Sun,  and  at  His  full 
noon  shall  have  melted  away  forever. 

X.  This  natural  consequence  of  original  sin,  to  wit,  condem- 
nation and  eternal  death,  is  actually  incurred  by     'i>nth  xi.e.si^. 

,,  ,  ,     ,  -  r^        n      LL  -VT  '  Tlie   necessity  nf 

all  who  are  not  born  again.  Cont.,"His  qui  non  tiie  new  birth  r.-r 
renascantur."     "  Alle  die  so  nicht  wiederum  neu  ^''^  •''"''''"  ""'' 

removal  of  origi- 

geboren  Warden."  naisin. 

1.  If  the  natural  tendency  and  consequence  of  original  sin  be 
death,  one  of  two  results  is  inevitable.  Either  sin  actually 
goes  on  and  results  in  death,  or  its  natural  tendency  is  in  some 
way  arrested.  Our  tenth  Thesis  affirms  that  the  only  \vay  in 
which  it  can  be  arrested  is  for  its  subject  to  be  born  again. 
By  nature  we  are  born  to  sin,  and  through  sin  to  eternal 
death.  By  grace  we  are  born  again  to  a  renewed  heart,  and 
through  a  renewed  heart  to  eternal  life. 

2.  The  relative  innocence  of  any  human  being  cannot  in 
itself  save  him.  The  innocence  of  any  human  being  can  only 
be  relative.  There  is  a  great  difference  in  the  character  of 
unregenerate  persons  relatively  to  each  other,  but  there  is  no 
difference  whatever  in  their  nature.  A  thousand  things  mould 
and  modify  character,  but  the  corrupt  heart  is  untouched  by 
them  all.  The  phenomena  of  a  corrupt  heart  are  infinitely 
diversified,  not  only  in  their  number,  but  in  their  intensity. 
The  young  man  w^hom  Jesus  loved,  and  Judas  who  betrayed 
his  Lord,  were  diverse  in  their  character.  The  one  was  lovely, 
the  other  as  odious  as  it  was  possible  for  unregenerated  charac- 
ter to  be.  But  they  had  alike  an  unchanged  heart  —  their 
nature  was  the  same.  The  innocence  of  the  young  man,  rela- 
tively to  Judas,  could  not  save  him.  The  so-called  innocence 
of  the  best  man  falls  infinitely  more  short  of  absolute  inno* 
cence  than  it    rises    above   the   deepest  absolute   criminality 


416  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

relatively.     Every  man  is  more  guilty  absolutely  than  lie  is 
innocent  relatively. 

3.  There  is  a  relative  innocence  in  the  infant  as  contrasted 
with  the  adult  ;  this  the  Scriptures  freely  allow:  "In  malice 
be  ye  children."  1  Cor.  xiv.  20.  Even  the  first  budding  of 
sin  seems  only  to  lend  the  charm  of  vivacity  to  the  little  crea- 
ture. The  baleful  passion  which,  in  the  matured  Cain,  darkens 
all  time  with  its  deed  of  murder,  may  have  made  his  father 
and  mother  smile  as  it  flushed  and  sparkled  in  the  miniature 
lines  of  anger  traced  on  his  face  in  childhood.  But  the  nature 
of  Cain  was  the  same  in  the  first  glow  of  anger  as  in  the  last, 
and  the  nature  which  was  in  the  first  glow  of  anger  was  in 
Cain  before  tbat  anger  arose.  That  anger  did  not  make  his 
moral  nature,  but  was  made  by  it.  The  great  need  of  the 
human  creature  is  indeed  to  be  saved /ro?/?  that  moral  nature, 
and  this  can  only  be  done  by  giving  him  a  new  heart.  The 
moral  nature  of  the  new-born  infant  is  as  truly  a  sinful  one  as 
that  of  the  grey-haired  old  reprobate,  even  as  the  physical 
nature  and  mental  nature  of  that  babe  are  as  really  a  human 
nature,  its  body  as  really  a  human  body,  its  soul  as  really  a 
human  soul,  as  those  of  the  ripe  adult.  God  can  no  more  save 
sin  in  nature  than  he  can  save  it  in  character,  and  hence  a  new 
nature  is  as  absolutely  needed  by  an  infant  as  by  an  adult. 
To  deny  that  an  infant  is  capable  of  regeneration  is  to  deny 
that  it  is  capable  of  salvation.  The  tree  is  Jaioicn  by  its  fruit, 
not  made  by  it.  While  the  tree  is  corrupt,  the  fruit  must  be 
corrupt.  If  the  tree  be  made  good,  the  fruit  will  be  good. 
Our  proposition,  then,  clothing  it  in  the  guise  of  our  Saviour's 
figure,  would  be  this  :  That  the  outgrowth  and  fruit  of  this 
tree  of  our  human  nature  must  inevitably  be  deadly,  unless  the 
nature  of  the  tree  itself  be  changed.  The  oiik-natiLre  is  the 
same  in  the  acorn  as  in  the  monarch  ctf  the  forestVho  has  cast 
his  shade  for  centuries.  If  the  acorn  grow,  it  inevitablj- 
grows  to  the  oak. 

4.  For  the  same  great  reason  the  relative  innocence  which 
arises  from  ignorance  cannot  save  men.  There  are  some  in 
nominal  Christendom  whose  privileges  are  so  few  that  their 
accountability  is  relatively  diminished.     The  millions  of  Jews, 


TENTH  THESIS.  417 

Mohammedans,  and  Pagans  are  relatively  innocent  in  charac- 
ter,  as  compared  with  the  unregenerate  who  have  the  full  light 
of  the  Gospel.  Yet,  however  few  and  light,  relatively,  their 
stripes  may  be,  as  they  knew  not  their  Master's  will,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  they  too  can  never  reach  heaven  with  an  unchanged 
nature.  Their  disqualification  is  none  the  less  real  because  it 
IS  relatively  less  voluntary  than  that  of  others.  Man  is  born 
with  a  moral  nature,  which  unfits  him  for  heaven.  More  than 
this,  the  moral  nature  has  in  it  something  which  God  abhors 
and  condemns.  Unless  in  some  way  another  moral  nature  is 
given  him,  he  not  only  must  negatively  be  excluded  from 
heaven,  but  must,  positively,  come  under  God's  wrath.  It  is 
said,  "  As  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  j)(^r^sh 
without  law  ;  "  but  it  is  nowhere  said,  "  As  many  as  have  been 
holy  without  law,  shall  be  saved  without  law."  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Apostle's  whole  argument  is  designed  to  prove  "  all 
the  world"  "guilty  before  God." 

5.  If  the  relative  innocence,  either  of  adults  or  of  infants, 
could  save  them  from  death  and  take  them  to  heaven,  their 
natures  being  still  under  the  power  of  inborn  sin,  heaven  itself 
would  simply  be,  in  one  respect,  earth  renewed  ;  it  would  be 
the  abode  of  sinful  beings.  In  another  respect  it  would  be 
worse  than  earth,  for  its  sinful  beings,  unrestrained  by  the  fear 
of  death,  would  yield  themselves  without  check  to  the  thoughts 
and  desires  of  their  corrupt  natures.  Going  to  heaven  would, 
in  the  case  supposed,  make  no  more  change  in  the  heart  than 
going  to  church.  A  bad  heart  may  have  its  worst  thoughts 
in  the  best  places.  If  sin  could  be  self-generated  in  heaven,  as 
in  the  case  of  angels  once  holy  but  now  fallen,  much  more 
might  and  would  it,  already  existing,  reveal  itself  there.  If 
angels  kept  not  their  first  estate  in  heaven,  much  more  would 
man  there  reveal  his  last  and  fallen  estate ;  and  it  might  as 
well  be  said  that  to  put  Lucifer  back  in  heaven  unchanged  is 
to  be  thought  of,  as  that  our  human  nature  unchanged  is  to 
be  placed  there. 

6.  Hence  the  testimony  of  Scripture  is  of  the  most  explicit 
kind  as  to  the  absolute  necessity/  of  the  new  birth  to  every  human 
creature.     Our  Lord  Jesus  says :  "  Except  a  man  (that  is  any 

27 


418  CONSERVATIVE   RE  FORM  ATI  OX. 

one  and  every  one)  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God."  If  our  blessed  Lord  had,  however,  anticipated  that 
there  might  be  an  effort  to  evade  the  all-comprehending  force 
of  his  words,  he  could  not  more  completely  have  made  that 
effort  hopeless  tban  by  adding,  as  he  did  :  "  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  that  is,  every  human  being  born 
naturally  into  our  world  is  fleshly,  and  needs  a  new  birth. 

7.  There  is  one  absolute  characteristic  of  all  God's  children  : 
"  They  were  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God,"  that  is,  no  human  creature,  in 
and  by  his  natural  birth,  is  God's  child,  but  must,  in  order 
to  this,  be  born  of  Him.  The  "  new  creature  "  alone  avails. 
'-''Every  one  that  doeth  righteousness  is  born  of  Him.'''' 

8.  Before  these  invincible  necessities  of  the  case,  and  this 
irresistible  witness  of  God's  Word,  goes  down  the  delusive  idea 
that  the  work  of  Christ  covers  the  case  either  of  Pagans  or  of 
infants.,  idtkoat  their  being  born  again.  Semi-Pelagianism  and 
Arminianism,  acknowledging  some  sort  of  original  sin,  and 
some  sort  of  a  need  of  a  remedy,  have  said  that  for  Christ's 
sake  infants,  having  no  conscious  sin,  are  forgiven,  and  with- 
out anything  further  being  needed,  pass  at  death  into  heaven. 
There  are  many  who  imagine  that  this  view  gives  relief  to  the 
great  difliculty  of  the  subject,  that  it  avoids  the  doctrine  that 
infants  may  be  lost,  and  yet  concedes  that  they  all  are  so  far 
sinners  as  to  need  a  Saviour ;  that  it  proposes  something  that 
shall  be  done  for  them,  and  yet  escapes  the  obnoxious  theory 
of  the  -possibilitg  and  necessity  of  infant  regeneration.  This  view 
has  been  mainly  devised  indeed  to  evade  the  last-mentioned 
doctrine.  But  it  is  far  from  escaping  the  pressure  of  the  diffi- 
culty. That  difliculty  is,  that  the  nature  of  the  child  is  a  sin- 
ful nature.  To  forgive  absolutely  that  sin  of  nature  simply 
for  Christ's  sake,  would  be  to  remove  the  penalty,  while  the 
guilty  thing  itself  is  untouched.  It  would  be  to  suppose  that 
the  child  is  removed  from  the  penal  curse  of  sin,  yet  left  fully 
under  the  power  of  sin  itself.  It  involves  the  justification  of 
an  unrenewed  nature.  It  supposes  Christ's  work  to  operate 
apart  from  the  applying  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  on  this 
theory  an  unregenerate  human  creature,  forgiven  for  Christ's 


TENTH  THESIS.  419 

Bake,  in  its  untouched  sin,  would  pass  into  heaven  still  unre- 
gencrate.  The  theory  errs  utterly  either  by  excess  or  by  lack. 
If  a  child  has  not  a  sinful  nature,  it  needs  no  Saviour.  If  its 
sin  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  condemnation,  it  needs  no  forgive- 
ness. But  if  it  has  a  sinful  nature,  it  needs  not  only  a  Saviour 
from  penalty,  but  a  renewing  power  to  save  it  from  the  in- 
dwelling of  sin  ;  if  it  is  subject  to  condemnation,  it  not  only 
needs  forgiveness,  but  the  exercise  of  a  gracious  power  which 
will  ultimately  remove  what  is  condemnable.  In  other  words, 
it  needs  to  be  born  again. 

9.  E'othing  but  downright  Pelagianism  of  the  extremest 
kind  can  save  any  man  logically  from  the  conclusion  we  are 
urging.  Original  sin  must  be  counteracted  in  its  natural 
tendency  to  death,  first,  by  a  power  which  removes  its  penalty, 
and  secondly,  by  a  power  which  ultimately  removes  the  sin 
itself.  The  power  which  removes  the  penalty  is  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  made  atonement  for  original  sin,  as  well  as 
for  the  actual  sins  of  men ;  the  power  which  can  remove  the 
sin  itself  is  in  the  new  birth.  The  former,  to  use  the  old 
theological  terminology,  is  necessary  to  remove  the  reatas  of 
original  sin,  that  is,  its  present  guilt  and  immediate  liability ; 
the  latter  is  necessary  to  remove  \t8  forties^  the  inciting  foment- 
ing power  itself,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  the  inateriale,  or 
essence  of  sin,  which  would,  left  to  itself,  ever  renew  the  guilt 
and  its  curse.  It  is  as  impossible  to  separate  the  justification 
of  an  infant  from  its  regeneration,  as  it  would  be  to  justify  an 
adult  while  his  heart  is  unchanged.  These  two  things,  justifi- 
cation and  regeneration,  may  be  separated  mentally,  and  are 
really  distinct,  but  they  are  never  separated  in  fact.  Unless 
there  be  regeneration,  there  will  be  no  forgiveness.  A  regen- 
erated man  is  always  justified,  a  justified  man  is  always  regen- 
erated ;  and  unless  a  man  be  both,  he  is  neither.  A  justified 
infant,  unregenerate,  is  inconceivable  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
such  justification  would  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness. 
Alike  then  to  the  attainment  of  both  forgiveness  and  sanctifi- 
cation,  or  of  either,  there  is  a  necessity  which  is  most  abso- 
lute ;  no  human  being  has  been,  or  can  be,  saved  from  eternal 
death  unless  he  be  born  again. 


420  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

10.  On  this  point,  all  sound  theology  of  every  part  of  our 
common  Christianity  is  a  unit.  It  is  not  distinctively  a  Lu- 
theran doctrine.  The  Romish  and  Greek  Churches  recognize 
the  impossibility  of  the  salvation  of  any  human  creature  with- 
out a  change  from  that  condition  into  which  he  is  born.  The 
Calvinistic  theory  (including  that  of  the  Calvinistic  Baptists^) 
involves  the  doctrine  that  infants  need  regeneration  to  fit  them 
for  heaven;  that  they  are  capable  of  regeneration,  that  it  actu- 
ally takes  place  in  the  case  of  elect  infants,  and  that  it  takes 
place  in  this  life.  Calvin  :  *  "  How,  say  they  (the  Anabaptists), 
are  infants  regenerated,  who  have  neither  the  knowledge  of 
good  or  evil?  We  answer,  that  it  does  not  follow  that  there 
is  no  work  of  God,  because  we  are  incapable  of  grasping  it,  for 
it  is  clear  that  infants  icho  are  to  be  saved  (as  certainly  some  of 
that  age  are  saved)  are  previously  regenerated  (ante  . .  regenerari), 
by  the  Lord."  That  milder  school  of  Calvinism,  which  merci- 
fully, and  perhaps  illogically,  departs  from  the  rigor  of  the 
older  and  more  self- consistent  Calvinism,  and  believes  that 
none  but  elect  infants  die  in  infancy,  does  not,  nevertheless, 
depart  from  the  old  and  true  view,  that  the  saved  infant  is 
regenerate,  and  can  only  as  regenerate  be  saved. 

This  great  fact  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  on  the  main 
difficulty  of  this  part  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  all  but 
Pelagians  are  in  unity  of  faith  with  our  Church.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Church  through  all  ages  is  most  explicit  on  this 
point :  That  no  unregenerate  human  being,  infant  or  adult. 
Pagan  or  nominal  Christian,  can  be  saved.  Without  holiness, 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  —  but  no  man  can  be  holy  with  his 
natural  heart  unchanged.  Except  we  have  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  we  are  none  of  Ilis  ;  but  this  Spirit  is  given  to  us  in 
and  by  the  new  birth  alone. 

XL  AYe  have  seen  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  new  birth  to 

Eleventh  The-  ^^cry  humau  creature,  and  we  now  affirm  as  our 

8i3.    The    Holy  Elevcntli  Thesis :  That  as  the  new  birth  is  abso- 

Fpirit     the     solo  •     i  i  i  .  n  r> 

author  of  the  lutcly  cssential  to  the  salvation  of  every  one  of  our 
new  birth.  racc,  SO  thc  Holy  Spirit  is  absolutely  essential  to 

the    new    birth.      "  Durch    heiligen     Geist,"  "  Per  spiritum 
sanctum." 

*  instil.  (IV,   xvi.  17.) 


ELEVENTH  THESIS.  421 

When  the  neio  birth  takes  place.)  it  is  invariably  wrought  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  proposition  sounds  like  a  truism.  Theoret- 
ically, all  Christians,  with  any  pretensions  to  the  name  Evan- 
gelical, would  accept  it,  and  yet,  practically,  it  is  constantly 
ignored.  Let  our  faith  rest  on  this,  that  whether  with  means 
or  without  means,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author  of  regenera- 
tion, simply  and  absolutely;  that  the  human  being  can  accom- 
plish no  part  of  it  whatever.  It  is  tiot  man's  own  work,  it  i8 
not  the  work  of  his  mind,  of  his  heart,  of  his  wdll,  but  it  is 
God's  w^ork  in  his  mind,  in  his  heart,  in  his  will.  The  power 
of  an  adult  human  being  in  the  matter  of  his  regeneration  is 
absolutely  negative.  He  can  resist,  he  can  thwart,  he  can 
harden  himself,  but  in  and  of  himself  he  cannot  yield,  or  con- 
sent, or  make  his  heart  tender. 

The  adult  is  as  helpless  positively,  in  the  power  of  producing 
his  own  regeneration,  as  the  infant  is.  The  adult  m??,  indeed, 
go,  and  must  go  to  the  preached  word,  and  can  and  must  go  to 
the  Bible :  he  can  use  the  means,  and  wdth  them  conjoin  fer- 
vent prayer ;  but  it  is  the  Spirit  of  God  w4io  regenerates  the 
man  through  the  means,  not  the  man  who  regenerates  him- 
self, either  through  the  means  or  apart  from  them.  The  adult, 
indeed,  with  the  means,  may  either  resist  the  Holy  Spirit  or 
cease  to  resist.  He  may  refuse  to  let  Him  work,  or  he  may 
suffer  Him  to  work.  The  difference  in  the  course  pursued 
here  makes  the  difference  of  result  between  two  adults,  one  of 
whom  becomes  regenerate,  and  the  other  does  not.  It  is  not 
that  the  one  regenerates  himself,  and  the  other  refuses  to  regen- 
erate himself.  It  is,  that  one  suffers  the  Holy  Spirit  to  regen- 
erate him  through  the  Word,  and  the  other  refuses  to  permit 
Him.  But  even  this  negative  power  is  derived  from  the  pres- 
ence of  grace  and  of  its  means,  for  a  man  to  whom  the  Word 
is  set  forth  is  ipso  facto  not  in  a  condition  of  pure  nature.  Even 
in  the  low  realm  of  mere  nature  there  are  not  wanting  analo- 
gies to  this  spiritual  fact.  Man  has,  for  example,  physically 
no  self- nourishing  power.  The  nutritive  property  of  food 
exerts  itself  on  him.  The  food  itself  is  the  medium  or  means 
of  nutrition.  Man  receives  the  food  outwardly,  and  the  mys- 
terious powder  of  nutrition  exerts  itself  through  the  food  thus 


422  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

received.  One  man  lives,  the  other  starves  ;  not  that  the  first 
has  any  power  of  self-nutrition,  but  that  he  received  the  out- 
ward thing  through  which  the  power  of  nutrition  is  exercised, 
and  did  not  counteract  its  effect ;  the  other  did  not  receive  the 
food,  and  consequently  failed  to  receive  the  nutritive  energy, 
or  receiving  the  food  outwardly,  like  the  first,  presented  some- 
thing in  his  system  which  resisted  the  working  of  its  nutri- 
tive power.  The  dependence  of  the  adult  on  nutriment  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  infant.  The  adult  can,  indeed,  ask 
for  nutriment,  an  asking  which  is  prayer,  and  the  infant  can- 
not. The  adult,  with  reflective  consciousness,  craves,  and  with 
reflective  consciousness  receives  nutriment,  which  the  infant 
cannot  do  ;  but  the  life  of  neither  is  self-sustained.  Both  must 
be  nourished  of  God  by  means  of  food.  The  mystery  of  regen- 
eration lies  in  this  central  mystery,  that  the  new  man  is  a  crea- 
ture, not  a  manufacture ;  he  is  born,  not  self-made;  his  moral 
condition  is  the  result,  primarily,  essentially,  and  positively, 
of  the  divine  will,  not  of  his  own  —  he  is  the  child  of  God: 
"  Which  were  born,  not  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will 
of  man,  but  of  God."  With  God  all  things  are  possible. 
"God  is  able  of  the  very  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abra- 
ham ;"  and  if  of  the  hard  rock  we  tread  upon.  He  could  make 
tender  and  faithful  hearts,  who  shall  attempt  to  limit  His 
energy  in  regard  to  any  of  our  race,  to  whom  his  jDromises  are 
given  ?  If  God  could,  from  inanimate  ^N'ature's  hardest  shapes, 
raise  up  faithful  children  to  faithful  Abraham,  much  more  can 
He  raise  them  up  from  infants,  the  children  of  His  people  — 
the  children  of  the  covenant.  The  internal  processes  of  regen- 
eration are  hidden  from  us.  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it 
listeth  (the  Spirit  breathes  where  He  will),  and  thou  hearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and 
whither  it  goeth.  So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 
God  claims  for  Himself  the  whole  work  of  our  regeneration. 
"  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  to  His  mercy  He  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."     Titus  iii.  5. 

The  absolute  essential  in  regeneration,  and  the  only  absolute 
essential  in  the  way  of  an  agent,  is  the  Holy  Spirit.     JN'ot  even 


riie  ahnolulc 
Mtiil. 


COVENANT  PRIVILEGES,  423 

the  means  belong  to  this  absolute  essential,  but  merely  to  the 
ordinary  essentials.  The  only  previous  condition  in  the  human 
soul  positively  necessary  when  the  Holy  Spirit  approaches  it, 
is  that  it  shall  not  resist  His  work.  Before  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  supreme  and  sole  necessity  of  »■''*«'-' 
the  Holy  Spirit's  work,  as  the  author  of  regeneration,  the  great 
mystery  of  infant  regeneration  and  of  infant  salvation  passes 
away.  The  Holy  Spirit  can  renew  the  infant  because  it  does 
not  resist  His  w^ork.  If,  therefore,  the  Holy  Spirit  wishes  to 
regenerate  an  infant,  He  can  regenerate  that  infant.  Who  will 
dispute  this  proposition?  We  do  not  here  affirm  that  He  will 
regenerate,  or  wishes  to  regenerate  one  of  the  many  millions 
who  die  in  infancy.  We  simply  ask  now  for  toleration  to  this 
proposition,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  He  wishes,  can  renew  th6 
nature  of  a  child.  Admit  this,  and  there  is  nothing  more  to 
settle  but  the  question  of  fact,  and  the  decision  of  that  ques- 
tion rests,  not  on  speculation,  but  on  the  witness  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  can  produce  this  new  birth,  then  it 
is  evident, 

1.  That  the  icork  of  Christ  cannot  produce  that  new  birth  in 
itself,  separate  from  the  applying  power  of  the  Holy  ^j^^.^^,^  ^^ 
Spirit.    It  is  the  gracious  Spirit  who  "  takes  of  the 

things  that  are  Christ's,  and  makes  them  ours." 

2.  The  relation  to  Christian  parents  can,  in  itself,  have  no 
regenerating  power.     The  child  of  the  holiest  of       christian  Pa- 
our  race  has  the  same  nature  as  the  child  of  the    '•""♦s- 
most  godless,  and  needs  the  same  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

3.  ^N'or  can  birth,  in  the  midst  of  covenant  privileges,  have 
ill  itself  a  regenerating  power.  The  child  whose  covenant  i-riv- 
parents  are  Christians,  or  who  has  one  Christian  ii^?*-*- 
parent,  is  indeed  "  holy  "  (avios),  that  is,  is  separated  by  the  fact 
of  such  birth  from  heathendom.  The  children  of  Christendom 
are,  in  virtue  of  that  fact,  generically  Christian ;  not  indeed 
members  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  separated  from  the 
world,  as  some  imagine,  and  receiving  in  their  baptism  merely 
a  recognition  of  a  relation  existing  apart  from  that  baptism, 
but  members  of  the  Christian  w^orld,  considered  as  separated 


424  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

from  the  Pagan  or  Jewish  world.  The  child  of  Christian 
parents,  or  of  a  Christian  parent,  is,  so  to  speak,  constructively 
and  provisionally,  and  by  a  natural  anticipation,  to  be  consid- 
ered Christian,  but  is  not  actually  such  until  it  is  baptized. 
Thus  a  resident  foreigner  in  our  land  is,  constructively  and 
provisionally,  an  American  citizen,  but  not  actually  such  until 
he  is  naturalized. 

This  is  the  true  force  of  the  passage  to  which  we  are  allud- 
ing (1  Cor.  vii.  14),  and  which  is  mainly  relied  on  by  those 
who  think  that  infants  are  born  of  the  flesh  into  the  earthly 
kingdom  of  God  —  the  Church.  This  is  apparent  on  a  careful 
examination  of  the  text.  The  question  before  the  Apostle  was 
this:  If  one  of  a  married  couple  became  Christian,  the  other 
remaining  Pagan,  would  this  diversity  of  religion  necessitate 
a  divorce  ?  The  Apostle  replies  it  would  not.  "  If  any  brother 
hath  a  wife  that  believeth  not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with 
him,  let  him  not  put  her  away.  And  the  woman  which  hath 
an  husband  that  believeth  not,  and  if  he  be  pleased  to  dwell 
with  her,  let  her  not  leave  him.  For  the  unbelieving  husband 
is  SANCTIFIED  (vr/iaffTai)  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
SANCTIFIED  {^.]yia.(j'm)  by  the  liusbaud.     Else  were  your  children 

UNCLEAN  (axa^otpra)  ;  but  UOW  are  they  HOLY  (a^ia)." 

Let  it  be  noted,  that  three  classes  of  persons  are  here  spoken 
of  as  holy  or  sanctified  : 

1.  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified ;  that  is,  is  holy, 
because  his  wife  is  a  Christian. 

2.  The  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  ;  that  is,  is  holy,  because 
her  husband  is  a  Christian. 

3.  The  children  are  sanctified  ;  that  is,  are  holy, because  one 
of  the  parents  is  a  Christian.  It  is  evident  then  that  this  sanc- 
tification  is  not  a  moral  one.  The  Pagan  husband  is  not,  by 
virtue  of  having  a  Christian  wife,  any  less  a  godless  man; 
neither  then  can  the  Apostle  mean  that  his  child  is  holy 
morally  because  its  mother  is  holy.  It  is  evident,  furthermore, 
that  the  sanctification  is  not  an  ecclesiastical  one.  The 
Pagan  wife  is  not  a  member  of  the  Church  because  her 
husband  is  a  Christian,  neither  then  is  her  child  holy  ecclesias- 
tically, separated  to  the  Christian  Church,  because  its  father  is 


COVENANT  PRIVILEGES.  425 

a  Christian.  It  necessarily  follows  then  that  thesanctification 
being  neither  moral,  nor  ecclesiastical,  is  generic,  and  that  this 
generic  character  has  a  limitation  in  the  nature  of  the  question 
and  of  the  case.  The  question  was :  Do  the  children  belong  to 
Christendom  or  Heathendom  ?  The  one  parent  is  Christian, 
the  other  Pagan.  Where  is  the  generic  relation  of  the  child, 
or  offspring,  whether  infant  or  adult,  of  these  parents  ?  The 
reply  of  the  Apostle  is :  That  God  decides  mercifully,  what 
could  not  be  decided  logically,  and  gives  the  children  the 
benefit  of  His  goodness  in  considering  them  as  generically 
related  to  the  better  system,  not  to  the  worse. 

The  unbelieving  father  is,  so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned, 
con'structively  in  Christendom,  so  that  his  child  is  no  more  a 
Pagan  child  than  if  both  parents  were  Christians.  On  the 
other  side,  the  child  is  so  far  constructively  in  Christendom  as 
if  both  parents  were  Christians.  The  unbelieving  father  is  so 
far  a  Christian  that  his  child  is  a  member  of  Christendom,  not 
of  Pagandom.  The  child  is  so  far  holy  that  it  is  now  one  of  the 
children  of  Christendom,  not  one  of  the  children  of  Pagandom. 
Within  the  great  world  there  is  the  generic  aggregate  of 
persons  belonging  to  the  world  of  Pagandom,  and  to  the  world 
of  Christendom.  The  w^orld  of  Christendom  is  genericalbj  holy, 
that  is,  as  Christendom,  it  is  separate  generically  from  Pagan- 
dom. But  within  the  world  of  Christendom  there  is  a  further 
separation.  The  Church  is  sanctified,  or  holy,  as  separate  from 
the  nominally  Christian  world  ;  this  is  an  ecclesiastical  holi- 
ness. But  within  this  Church  there  is  yet  a  further  separation 
of  genuine  Christians  from  merely  nominal  ones,  and  this  holi- 
ness is  MORAL.  The  answer  of  the  Apostle  is,  not  that  the  chil- 
dren (adult  as  well  as  infant)  are  morally  holy,  nor  that  they  are 
ECCLESIASTICALLY  lioly,  but  that  they  are  generically  holy, — 
in  a  word,  that  they  are  just  as  little  of  Pagandom,  just  as 
much  children  of  Christendom,  as  if  both  parents  were  Chris- 
tians. All  children  who  have  either  both  parents,  or  but  one 
parent,  Christian,  alike  belong,  not  to  Christian  saints,  nor  to 
the  invisible  church,  not  to  the  Christian  body  in  the  visible 
church,  nor  to  the  Christian  family,  in  a  word,  they  belong 
not  to  the  Christian  species,  but  simply  to  the  Christian  genus 


426  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

or  Christian  world,  which  we  call  Christendom.  The  real 
question  settled  then  by  the  Apostle  is  no  more  than  this,  that 
the  child  of  one  Christian  parent  has  the  same  spiritual  rela- 
tion as  the  child  whose  parents  are  both  Christians,  leaving  it 
in  the  main  an  open  question  what  those  relations  are.  Hence 
the  inference  from  this  passage  goes  to  the  ground,  that  children 
are  members  of  the  visible  church  by  their  birth,  and  much 
more  the  inference  that  they  are  born  again  by  virtue  of  their 
relation  to  Christian  parents. 

4.  IS'or  is  there  any  power  in  death  to  regenerate.  There  are 
those  who  seem  to  think  that  the  body  is  the  seat  of  original 
Death  no  regen-  siu,  aud  that  all  that  is  necessary  to  redeem  the 
erating  power.  ^^^^  froui  tlic  powcr  of  siu,  is  to  Separate  it  from 
the  body.  But  the  true  primary  seat  of  sin  is  the  soul.  The 
body  can  be  spoken  of  as  the  seat  of  sin  only  in  a  secondary 
sense,  and  because  of  the  soul's  connection  with  it.  The  mere 
separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body,  cannot  in  itself  change 
the  soul's  moral  condition.  He  that  is  unregenerate  before 
death,  remains  unregenerate  after  death,  unless  after  death  the 
Holy  Spirit  make  the  great  change.  Death  in  itself  can  have 
no  such  power,  and  no  such  tendenc}-.  But  if  the  Holy  Spirit 
can  work  this  change  in  an  infant  after  death,  He  can 
just  as  readily  do  it  before  its  death,  and  the  whole  idea 
of  purgation  after  death,  of  a  change  of  relation  to  God 
after  the  departure  of  the  soul,  of  a  renewal  of  probation  in  an 
eternal  world,  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  entire  tendency  of  the 
Xevv  Testament  doctrine.  To  admit  it,  is  to  admit  the  exist- 
ence of  a  purgatory ;  it  would  grant  the  Romish  doctrine  in 
its  main  point,  and  the  controversy  would  narrow  itself  to  the 
comparative  trifles  of  the  duration  and  modes  of  that  purga- 
tory. Xo  such  -refuge  is  necessary.  The  great  change  is 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  and  the  possibilities  and 
probabilities  of  human  regeneration  are  limited  by  nothing 
but  His  pur}>ose  and  His  power.  Any  regeneration  for  which 
infinite  power  is  adequate,  and  which  divine  goodness  purposes 
and  promises,  may  and  will  be  wrought. 

XII.  This  new  birth  by  the  Holy  Spirit  has  Baptism  as  one 
of  its  ordinary  means.     Conf.,  "  Durch  die  Taufe,"  ''  per  Bap- 


THE  MARBURG  ARTICLES.  427 

tismum."  The  part  of  the  Second  Article  of  the  Augshurg 
Confession  which  comes  under  discussion  in  this  thesis  is 
that  which  asserts  that  original  sin  brings  eternal  Twifti.  Ti.esi*. 
death  to  all  those  who  are  not  born  again  of  bap-  !!!'frVH '?"; 
TiSM  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  have  shown  the  '^i"- 
absolute  necessity  of  being  born  again  ;  we  have  seen  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  absolutely  essential  to  that  new  birth ;  it 
now  remains  to  explain  and  vindicate  our  Confession  in 
its  declaration  that  the  new  birth  must  also  be  of  Bap- 
tism. 

As  this  is  one  of  the  points  specially  objected  to,  and  as 
these  words  have  been  omitted  in  the  "  Definite  Platform," 
which,  so  far  as  its  omission  is  evidence,  denies  not  only  the 
necessity  of  baptism,  but  the  necessity  altogether  either  of  the 
new  birth,  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  remove  the  results  of  origi- 
nal sin,  we  may  be  pardoned  for  dwelling  at  some  length  upon 
it.  The  doctrine  of  our  Church  in  regard  to  baptism  is  one  of 
the  few  fundamental  points  on  which  any  part  of  evangelical 
Christendom  avowedly  differs  with  her.  We  propose  to  give, 
first,  some  historical  matter  bearing  upon  the  origin  and 
meaning  of  these  words  in  our  Confession.  We  shall  present 
these  chronologically. 

1529.  The  fifteen  doctrinal  articles  of  Luther,  prepared 
at  the  Colloquy  at  Marburg,  on  this  point  run  i.  xhe  Mar- 
thus  :  ^"""S  Articles. 

"  In  the  FOURTH  place,  we  believe  that  original  sin  is  a  sin  of 
such  kind  that  it  condemns  all  men,  and  if  Jesus  Christ  had 
not  come  to  our  help  with  His  life  and  death,  we  must  have 
died  eternally  therein,  and  could  not  have  come  to  the  king- 
dom and  blessedness  of  God." 

"  In  the  FIFTH  place,  we  believe  that  we  are  redeemed  from 
this  sin,  and  from  all  other  sins,  and  from  eternal  death,  if  w^e 
believe  on  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  who  died  for  us ;  and 
without  this  faith  we  cannot  be  absolved  from  a  single  sin  by 
any  work,  condition,  or  order." 

"  In  the  SIXTH  place,  that  this  faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  which 
we  can  gain  by  no  antecedent  work  or  merit,  nor  can  reach  by 
any  power  of  our  own,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  gives  and  furnishes 


428  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

it  where  He  will ;  in  our  hearts,  when  we  hear  the  Gospel  or 
word  of  Christ." 

"  In  the  SEVENTH  place,  this  faith  is  our  righteousness  hefore 
God."  * 

1530.  The  Marhurg  Articles  which  were  signed  hy  Luther, 
II  The  XVII  Melanchthon,  Zwingli,  and  Oecolampadius,  and  the 
Doctrinal  Arti-  otlicr  Icadlug  thcologiaus  on  hoth  sides,  were  laid 
by  Luther  as  the  ground-work  of  the  XVII  Doc- 
trinal Articles,  which  were  prepared  the  same  year,  and  which 
appeared  in  1530.  These  XVII  Articles  are  the  direct  basis  of 
the  doctrinal  portion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  In  the  fourth 
of  these  Articles,  Luther  says  :  "  Original  sin  icould  condemn  all 
men  who  come  from  Adam,  and  would  separate  them  forever 
from  God,  had  not  Jesus  Christ  become  our  representative  and 
taken  upon  Himself  this  sin,  and  all  sins  which  follow  upon 
it,  and  by  His  sufierings  made  satisfaction  therefor,  and  thus 
utterly  removed  and  annulled  them  in  Himself,  as  is  clearly 
taught  in  regard  to  this  sin  in  Psalm  li.,  and  Rom.  v."  f 

1533.  In  Melanchthon's  German  edition  of  the  Confession, 

HI   The  Ger-  ^^  1533,  tlic  ouly  cdltiou  in  the  German  in  which 

x,ian  Edition  of  auy  varlatlous  were  made  by  him,  and  which  has 

1533  ... 

never  been  charged  with  deviating  in  any  respect 
in  meaning  from  the  original  Confession,  this  part  of  the  Arti- 
cle runs  thus  :  "  (Original  Sin)  condemns  all  those  under  God's 
wrath  who  are  not  born  again  through  Baptism,  and  faith  in 
Christ,  through  the  Gospel  and  Holy  Spirit.":]: 

From  these  historical  parallels  and  illustrations  certain  facts 
iv.Meaningof  ^rc  vcry  clcar  as  to  the  meaning  of  the    Confes- 

the  Confession.        fiion 

1.  The  Article  teaches  us  what  original  sin  would  do  if  there 
Drift  of    the  were  no  redemption  provided  in  Christ.    The  mere 
Article.  £^J2^  ^^.^^  Christ  has  wrought  out  His  work  pro- 

vides a  sufficient  remedy,  if  it  be  applied.,  to  save  every  human 
creature  from  the  effects  of  original  sin.     Let  not  this  great  fact 

*Tbe  Articles  are  given  in  full  in  Rudelbach's  Reformation,  Luthcrtlium  uud 
Union,  p.  G65. 

•j- Luther's  Werke:  Jena  v.  14.     Mentzer  :   Exeges.  Aug.  Conf.  42. 
t  Weber's  Edit.   Weimar,  1781.     Corpus  Reformator.  xxvi.  725. 


WnO  ARE  REFERRED   TO  IN  THIS  ARTICLE?     429 

be  forgotten.  Let  it  never  be  left  out  of  the  account  in  look- 
ing at  the  mystery  of  original  sin,  that  there  is  an  ample 
arrangement  by  which  the  redemption  of  every  buman  crea- 
ture from  the  results  of  original  sin  could  be  effected  ;  that 
there  is  no  lack  in  God's  provision  for  saving  every  one  of  our 
race  from  its  results.  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  tbe  graite 
of  God,  tasted  death  for  every  man.'" 

2.  It  is  not  tbe  doctrine  of  our  Confession  that  any  human 
creature  bas  ever  been,  or  ever  will  be,  lost  purelv     t  ,  . 

'  'It/  Is.'iny  nian!o?t 

on  account  of  original  sin.  For  while  it  supposes  for  original  su 
that  original  sin,  if  unarrested,  would  bring  death,  ""''^ " 
it  supposes  it  to  be  arrested,  certainly  and  ordinarily,  by  tbo 
Holy  Spirit,  through  tbe  divine  means  rightly  received,  and 
throws  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  our  hearty  faitb  that,  in  tbo 
case  of  infants  dying  without  the  means,  tbe  Holy  Ghost,  in 
His  own  blessed  way,  directly  and  extraordinarily,  may  make 
the  change  that  delivers  the  child  from  the  power  of  indwell- 
ing sin.  Luther,  in  his  marginal  note  on  John  xv.  22,  says: 
"  Denn  durch  Christum  ist  die  Erbslinde  auifgebaben,  und  ver- 
damnet  nach  Christus  zukuniFt  niemand.  On  wer  sie  nicht 
lassen,  das  ist,  wer  nicht  gleuben  wil.''  "Through  Christ 
original  sin  is  annulled,  and  condemneth  no  man  since  Christ's 
coming,  unless  he  will  not  forsake  it  (original  sin),  that  is,  will 
not  believe." 

3.  It  seems  very  probable  from  the  parallels,  that  the  con- 
fessors had  mainly,  thouo:h  not  exclusively,  in  their 

/  ^  ^  .  "^^'ho  ^>«^  main- 

eye,  m  this  particular  part  of  the  Article,  original   ly  referred  to  in 

sin  as  developing  itself  in  actual  sin  in  the  adult,  tins  Article? 
and  requiring  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  save  men  from 
its  curse.  Hence  the  illustrious  PfafF,  in  his  brief  but  very 
valuable  notes  on  the  Confession,  says :  "  The  language  here 
has  chiefly  (maxime)  reference  to  adults  Avho  despise  baptism  ; " 
and  such  is,  unquestionably,  the  drift  of  the  form  in  which 
Melanchthon  puts  it  in  the  edition  of  1533.  The  Larger  Cate- 
chism* argues  to  the  adult  on  the  necessity  of  Baptism : 
''Baptism  is  no  plaything  of  human  invention,  but  has  been 
instituted  by  God  Himself,  who  has  earnestly  and  strictly  com- 

*  48G,  0. 


430  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

manded  that  we  should  cause  ourselves  to  he  baj^fized  (wir  nns 
miissen  taufen  lassen),  or  ice  cannot  he  saved  (oder  sollen  nicht 
selig  werden}.  ISTo  man  is  to  think  of  it  as  a  trifling  matter  — 
the  mere  putting  on  of  a  new  coat." 

Grauer  (who  was  styled  "  the  shield  and  sword  of  Lutheran- 
ism  "j,  in  commenting  on  the  words  of  the  Confession,  says:  * 
*'  Inasmuch  as  Baptism  is  necessar^^  to  salvation,  it  is  carefully 
to  be  noted  what,  and  of  what  sort,  is  that  necessity.  "When 
the  Augsburg  Confession  teaches  that  Baptism  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  it  refers  to  the  ordinary  mode  wliich  God  observes  in 
saving  men.  For  in  that  respect  (ibi)  Baptism  is  necessary, 
and,  indeed,  in  such  measure  (ita)  that  if  any  one  is  unwilling 
to  be  baptized,  when  it  is  in  his  power  to  obtain  Baptism,  he 
shall  surely  be  condemned  ;  for  the  contempt  of  the  Sacrament 
condemns.  The  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  there- 
fore, is  this,  that  Baptism  is  not  a  thing  indifterent,  which  any 
one  may  use  at  his  libertj',  but  that  it  is  an  external  mean  of 
such  kind  that  every  one  embracing  the  Christian  faith  is 
bound  (debet)  to  use  it,  if  it  is  possible  for  him  to  obtain  it. 
But  the  matter  is  different  in  a  case  of  necessity,  when  any 
one  cannot  obtain  it." 

4.  The  Confession  does  not  teach  that  the  outward  part  of 
Baptism  reaienerates  those  who  receive  it.     It  says 

Baptism,  in       ,  .       .  ,         ,  •  /»   -r>        x' 

whatee..sc.ne<c8-  that  it  IS  ucccssary  to  be  born  again  of  Baptism 
'*"''^''  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    It  is  evident  from  this  that 

it  draws  a  distinction  between  the  two.  It  implies  that  we 
may  have  the  outward  part  of  Baptism  performed,  and  not  be 
born  again  ;  but  confessedly  we  cannot  have  the  saving  energy 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  exercised  upon  us  without  being  born  again, 
whether  ordinarily  in  Baptism,  or  extraordinarily  without 
Baptism.  The  very  order  of  the  words  is  signiiicant,  for  the 
confessors  do  not  say,  and  would  not  say,  "  born  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  Baptism:  "  but  the  order  is  the  very  reverse,  "of 
Baptism  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Hence,  while  the  doctrine  of 
the  Confession  is  that  the  new  birth  itself  is  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  salvation,  and  that  the  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  new  birth,  it  is  not  its  doctrine  that 

*  Praelect.  Academic,  in  August.  Confess.     Ed.  Tert.  Jena.  1639.  p.  818. 


IS  BAPTISM  ABSOLUTELY  NECESSARY?        431 

tho  outward  part  of  Baptism  is  essential  absolutely,  nor  that 
regeneration  necessarily  attends  it.  The  necessity  of  tlie  out- 
ward part  of  Baptism  is  not  the  absolute  one  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  Himself  works  regeneration,  but  is  the  ordinary 
necessity  of  the  precept,  and  of  the  means.  It  is  necessary 
because  God  has  enjoined  it,  and  voluntary  neglect  to  do  what 
God  has  enjoined  destroys  man.  It  is  necessary  because  God 
has  connected  a  promise  with  it,  and  he  who  voluntarily 
neglects  to  seek  God's  promises  in  God's  connections  will  look 
for  them  in  vain  elsewhere.  It  is  necessary  because  God  makes 
it  one  of  the  ordinary  channels  of  His  grace,  and  he  who  vol- 
untarily turns  from  the  ordinary  channel  to  seek  grace  else- 
where, will  seek  it  in  vain.  It  is  so  necessary  on  our  part  that 
we  may  not,  we  dare  not,  neglect  it.  But  on  God's  part  it  is 
not  so  necessary  that  He  may  not,  in  an  extraordinary  case, 
reach,  in  an  extraordinary  way,  what  Baptism  is  His  ordinary 
mode  of  accomplishing.  Food  is  ordinarily  necessary  to  human 
life ;  so  that  the  father  who  voluntarily  withholds  food  from 
his  child  is  at  heart  its  murderer.  Yet  food  is  not  so  abso- 
lutely essential  to  human  life  that  God  may  not  sustain  life 
without  it.  God's  own  appointments  limit  us,  but  do  not  limit 
Him.  Man  does  live  by  food  alone  on  the  side  of  God's  ordi- 
nary appointment ;  yet  he  no  less  lives,  when  God  so  w^ills,  not 
by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God. 

5.  Hence,  of  necessity,  goes  to  the  ground  the  assumption 
that  the  Au2:sbur2:  Confession  teaches  that  unbap-     ,  „   ,. 

n  r>  -^  Is  Baptism  ab- 

tized  infants  are  lost,  or  that  any  man  deprived,  souueiy    neces- 
without  any  fault  of  his  own,  of  Baptism  is  lost.  ''""^^ 
When  we  say  absolute,  we  mean  that  which  allows  of  no  excep- 
tions.    The  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism,  in  this  sense,  has 
been  continually  denied  in  our  Church. 

The  language  of  Luther  is  very  explicit  on  this  point.* 
In  his  ''  Christliches  Bedenken  "  (1542),  in  reply  to  anxious 
Christian  mothers,  he  (1)  refutes  and  forbids  the  practice  of 
the  Romish  Church,  of  baptizing  a  child  not  fully  born,  a 
practice  based  upon  the  idea  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Bap- 

*  Leipzig  ed.  of  Luther's  Works,  Vol.  xxii.  pp   400-422. 


432  CONSEBVATIVE    REFOBMATIOK 

tism  to  the  salvation  of  a  child.  (2)  He  directs  that  those  who 
are  present  should  hold  firmly  to  Christ's  words,  "  unless  a 
man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and 
sliall  kneel  down  and  pray  that  our  Lord  God  may  make  this 
child  partaker  in  His  sufterings  and  death,  and  shall  then  not 
doubt  that  He  knows  full  well  how,  in  his  divine  grace 
and  pity,  to  fulfil  that  prayer.  AVherefore,  since  that 
little  child  has,  by  our  earnest  prayer,  been  brought  to  Christ, 
and  the  prayer  has  been  uttered  in  faith,  what  we  beg  is  estab- 
lished with  God,  and  heard  of  Him,  and  he  gladly  receiveth  it, 
as  He  Himself  says  (Mark  x.  14) :  "  Sufier  the  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."  Then  should  we  hold  that  the  little  child,  though  it 
has  not  obtained  Baptism,  is  not,  on  that  account,  lost  ?  "  Dan 
das  Kindlein,  ob  es  wohl  die  rechte  Taufe  nicht  erlanget,  da- 
von  nicht  verloren  ist." 

This  "  Bedenken  "  of  Luther  was  accompanied  by  an  expo- 
sition of  the  27th  Psalm,  by  Bugenhagen,  which 
Luther  endorsed.  The  main  object  of  Bugenhagen 
in  this  treatise  is  to  give  consolation  in  regard  to  unbaptized  chil- 
dren, over  against  what  he  calls  the  shameful  error,  drawn  not 
from  God's  Word,  but  from  man's  dreams,  that  such  children 
are  lost.  Bugenhagen,  after  teaching  parents  to  commit  to 
God  in  prayer  their  child  which  cannot  be  baptized,  adds: 
"Then  shall  we  assuredly  believe  that  God  accepts  the  child, 
and  we  should  not  commit  it  to  the  secret  judgment  of  God. 
To  commit  it  to  the  secret  judgment  of  God,  is  to  throw  to  the 
wind,  and  despise  the  promises  of  God  in  regard  to  little  chil- 
dren," (pp.  400-422).  Both  Luther  and  Bugenhagen  discuss 
at  large  the  argument  for,  and  objections  against,  the  doctrine 
of  the  salvation  of  unbaptized  little  children,  and  demonstrate 
that  it  is  no  part  of  the  faith  of  our  Church,  that  Baptism  is 
absolutely  necessary :  that  is,  that  there  are  no  excej^tions  or 
limitations  to  the  proposition  that,  unless  a  man  is  born  again 
of  the  Water  of  Baptism,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

Luther   and    Bugenhagen    condemn    those    who    refuse   to 
unbaptized   children   the  rites  of  Christian  burial,  and  who 


IS  BAPTISM  ABSOLUTELY  NECESSABYf       433 

object  to  laying  their  bodies  in  consecrated  ground,  as  if  they 
were  outside  of  the  Church.  "  We  bury  them,*'  say  they,  "  as 
Christians,  confessing  thereby  that  we  believe  the  strong  assur- 
ances of  Christ.  The  bodies  of  these  unbaptized  children  have 
part  in  the  joyous  resurrection  of  life."* 

Hoffman  (Tuebingen,  1727),  to  whom  we  owe  one  of  the 
most  admirable  of  the  older  expositions  of  the  Confession, 
says :  "  It  does  not  follow  from  these  words  that  all  children 
of  unbelievers,  born  out  of  the  Church,  are  lost.  Still  less  is 
such  an  inference  true  of  the  unbaptized  children  of  Christians; 
for  although  regeneration  is  generally  wrought  in  infants  by 
Baptism,  yet  it  may  be  wrought  extraordinarily  by  an  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  without  means,  which  the  Augsburg 
Confession  does  not  deny  in  these  words.  It  merely  desires 
to  teach  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  new  birth,  or  regenera- 
tion, and  the  ordinarij  necessity  of  Baptism.  On  the  question 
whether  the  infants  of  the  heathen  nations  are  lost,  most  of 
our  theologians  prefer  to  suspend  their  judgment.  To  affirm 
as  a  certain  thing  that  they  are  lost,  could  not  be  done  without 

rashness."  t 

Feuerlin  (Obs.  to  A.  C.  p.  10,)  says :  ''  In  regard  to  the 
infants  of  unbelievers,  we  are  either  to  suspend  our  judgment 
or  adopt  the  milder  opinion,  in  view  of  the  universality  of  the 
salvation  of  Christ,  which  can  be  applied  to  them  by  some 
extraordinary  mode  of  regeneration." 

Carpzov,  whose  Introduction  to  our  Symbolical  Books  is  a 
classic  in  its  kind,  says:  ''The  Augsburg  Confession  does  not 
say  that  unbaptized  infants  may  not  be  regenerated  in  an 
extraordinary  mode.  The  harsh  opinion  of  Augustine,  and  of 
other  fathers,  in  regard  to  this,  was  based  upon  a  misunder- 
standing of  John  iii.  5,  for  they  regarded  those  words  as 
teaching  an  absolute  necessity  of  Baptism,  when,  in  fact,  that 
necessity  is  only  ordinary — a  necessity  which  binds  us,  and 
will  not  allow  us  to  despise  or  neglect  Baptism,  but  does  not 
at  all  bind  God  to  this  mean,  as  if  He  coidd  not,  or  woidd  not, 
in  a  case  of  necessity  arising  in  His  own  providence,  perform 
that  in  an  extraordinary  way,  which,  in  other  cases,  He  per- 

*  p.  418.  t  PP-  36,  37. 

28 


434  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

forms  in  an  ordinary  one,  through  means  instituted  by  Him- 
self. As,  therefore,  the  texts  of  Scripture  speak  of  an  ordinary 
necessity,  so  also  of  that  same  sort  of  necessity,  and  of  no 
other,  do  Protestants  speak  in  the  Augsburg  Confession." 

It  would  be  very  easy  to  give  evidence  on  the  same  point 
from  all  our  most  eminent  Lutheran  writers  on  the  doctrine 
of  our  Church,  but  it  is  not  necessary.  !N'o  one  who  has  read 
them  will  need  any  citations  to  establish  a  fact  with  which  be 
is  so  familiar.  They  who  tell  the  world  that  it  is  a  doctrine 
of  our  Church  that  Baptism  is  absolutely  essential,  and  that 
all  unbaptized  persons  are  lost,  can  only  be  defended  from  the 
charge  of  malicious  falsehood  on  the  plea  of  ignorance.  But 
ignorance,  if  it  assume  the  responsibilities  of  knowledge,  is 
not  innocent. 

6.  The  truth  is,  no  system  so  thoroughly  as  that  of  the 
Infant  saivu-  Luthcrau  Church  places  the  salvation  of  infants  on 
tion  in  the  Lu-  thc  vcry  highcst  ground. 

theran  system.  ^,.         .^^        *"  i  i  t  t 

ihe  Felagian  system  would  save  them  on  the 
ground  of  personal  innocence,  but  that  ground  we  have  seen 
to  be  fallacious.     The  Calvinistic  system  places  their  salva- 
TheCaivinistic  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^^  grouud  of  diviuc  clcctiou,  and  speaks 
System.  of  clcct  iufauts,  aud  hence,  in  its  older  and  more 

severely  logical  shape  at  least,  supposed  not  only  that  some 
unbaptized,  but  also  that  some  baptized  infants  are  lost. 

1.  In  the  Westminster  Assembly's  Confession,  chap,  vi.,  it  is 
said:  "Our  first  parents  .  .  sinned.  .  .  The ^^/z7/f  of  this  sin  was 
imputed.,  and  the  same  deaths  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature,  co7i- 
veyed  to  all  their  posterity.  Every  sin,  both  original  and 
actual,  .  .  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner, 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  2crath  of  God  and  curse  of  the 
law,  and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual, 
temporal,  and  eternal.'^  The  infant,  then,  Christian  or  Pagan, 
is  born  in  "  guilt,"  "  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  the 
curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  subject  to  eternal  death."  How 
does  Calvinism  relieve  it  from  this  condition?  The  answer  to 
this  is  given  in  what  follows. 

2.  The  election  of  God  rests  upon  nothing  whatever  foreseen 
in  the  creature  (ch.  iii.  5),  "  as  causes  or   conditions  moving 


THE   CALVINISTIC  SYSTEM.  435 

Him  thereunto."  The  foreseen  Christian  birth,  or  early  death, 
of  a  child  can,  therefore,  in  no  respect  bear  upon  its  election. 
To  assume  that  all  children  dying  in  infancy,  even  the  children 
of  Christians,  are  elect,  and  yet  that  the  prevision  of  their 
beino;  so  born  and  so  dying  has  no  relation  to  their  election,  is 
illogical. 

3.  "  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath 
lie  .  .  .  foreordained  all  the  means  thereunto.  Wherefore  the7/ 
who  are  elected  ...  are  effectually  called  unto  faith  in  Christ  by 
His  Spirit  working  in  due  season ;  are  justified,  adopted,  sano 
tified,  and  kept  by  His  power  through  faith  unto  salvation. 
Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called, 
justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  hut  the  elect  only.'' 
(Westm.  Conf.  iii.  6.) 

According  to  this  Article,  where  the  '^  means  thereunto" 
are  not,  the  election  is  not.  But  in  the  Calvinistic  system 
Baptism  is  not  the  means  of  grace,  but  only  the  sign  or  seal  of 
grace  (xxvii.  1).  What  is  the  mean  whereby  "  elect  infants  " 
are  effectually  called  unto  "  faith  in  Christ "  ?  and  do  infants 
have  "/azY/i  in  Christ?"  are  they  ^'justified,  sanctified,  kept 
through  faith  unto  salvation  "  ?  Only  those  who  have  the 
means  are  among  the  elect,  and  only  the  elect  have  the  effectual 
means.  Then  Pagan,  Mohammedan,  and  Jewish  adults  and 
infants  are  of  necessity  lost.  But  has  even  a  baptized  infant 
the  means  of  effectual  calling,  of  faith,  of  justification  ?  The 
Lutheran  system  says,  It  has.  The  Calvinistic  system  says.  It 
has  not.  Either,  then,  the  elect  infant  is  saved  without 
means,  or  there  are  none  elect  who  die  in  infancy.  But  Cal- 
vinism denies  both  propositions,  and  is  involved  in  hopeless 
contradiction.  Either  Baptism  is  properly  a  means  of  grace, 
and  not  its  mere  seal,  or,  according  to  Calvinism,  logically 
pressed,  no  one  dying  in  infancy  is  elect,  and  all  infants  are  lost. 

4.  ^'All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and 
those  ONLY,  He  is  pleased  effectually  to  call  by  His  Word  and 
Spirit  .  .  "  (x.  1).  "This  effectual  call  is  not/rom  anything  at  all 
foreseen  in  man  "  (x.  2).  ''-Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are 
regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who 
worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  He  pleaseth.     So  also  are 


136  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word  "  (x.  3).     "  Faith  is  ordi- 
narily  wrought  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word  "  (xiv.  1).     Here 
the  system  comes  again  into  direct  self-contradiction.     In  the 
face  of  chap.  iii.  6,  it  is  taught  that  there  is  an  "  effectual 
call,"  without  means,  without  anything  outward,  without  the 
ministry  of  the  Word,  or  Sacraments,  utterly  out  of  the  ordi- 
nary channel.     "  It  might  be  lawful,"  says  Peter  Martyr,  "  to 
affirm  that  young  children  be  born  again  by  the  Word  of  God, 
but  yet  by  the  inward  Word,  that  is  by  the  comfortable  power 
of  Christ  and  his  Holy  Spirit."-     But  if  the  Holy  Ghost,  with- 
out any  means,  regenerates  some  of  the  elect,  why  may  there 
not  be  elect  Pagans  reached  in  the  same  way  ?  and  if  it  be  said 
that  only  those  born  in  Christendom  are  elect,  and,  of  conse- 
quence, extraordinarily  called,  is  not  that  an  admission  that 
the  mere  fact  of  birth  in  Christendom  in  some  sense  influences 
the  election?     The  Baptist  system,  which  totally  withholds 
Baptism  from  the  infant,  and  every  system  which,  while  it  con- 
fers the  outward  rite,  denies  that  there  is  a  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  which  Baptism  is  the  ordinary  channel,  are  alike  desti- 
tute, on  their  theory,  of  any  means  actually  appointed  of  God 
to  heal  the  soul  of  the  infant. 
,  The  Romish  system,  too  Pelagian  to  think  that  original  sin 
could  bring  the  positive   pains  of  eternal  death, 
noinishsvstem.  ^^^  too  tcuacious  of  the  external  rite  to  concede 
that  an  infant  can  be  saved  without  that  rite,  leaves  its  theolo- 
gians, outside  of  this  general  determination,  in  a  chaos  of  doubt. 
Some  of  them  reach  the  middle  theory,  that  the  unbaptized 
infant  is  neither  in  heaven  nor  hell,  but  in  a  dreary  limbo. 
Others  consign  it  to  hell.    The  Council  of  Trent  declares:  "  If 
any  one  shall  say  that  the  Sacraments  of  the  IsTew  Law  are  not 
necessary  to   salvation,  and   that  without  them,  or  a  desire 
for  them,  men  obtain  .  .  .  the  grace  of  justification  .  .  .  ;  let 
him  be  anathema."    "  If  any  one  shall  say  that  Baptism  .  .  is 
not  necessary  unto  salvation,  let  him  be  anathema." t     The 
Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (Quest,  xxx) :  "  Nothing 

*  Common  Place.     Transl    by  Ant.honie  Marten.   1583.   Lond.  Fol    iv.  136. 
f   SeBS.  vii.  Can.  4.     De  Baptism,  Can.  6. 


THE  ROMISH  SYSTEM.  437 

can  seem  more  necessary  than  that  the  faithful  be  taught  that 
this  Law  of  Baptism  is  prescribed  by  our  Lord  to  all  men,  inso- 
much that  they,  unless  they  be  regenerated  unto  God  through 
the  grace  of  Baptism,  are  begotten  by  their  parents  to  everlasting 
misery  and  destruction,  whether  their  parents  be  believers  or 
unbelievers."  In  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  Trent,  Bellar- 
MIN  saj's:  "The  Church  has  always  believed  that  if  infanta 
depart  from  this  life  without  Baptism,  they  perish.  The 
Catholic  faith  requires  us  to  hold  that  little  ones  dying  with- 
out Baptism  are  condemned  to  the  penalty  of  eternal  death." 
*'  Yet  are  they  not  punished  with  the  penalty  of  sense  or  of 
sensible  fire."  "It  is  probable  that  those  little  ones  suffer  an 
internal  grief  (although  a  most  mild  one),  forasmuch  as  they 
understand  that  they  are  deprived  of  blessedness,  are  sepa- 
rated from  the  society  of  pious  brethren  and  parents,  are 
thrust  down  into  the  prison  of  hell,  and  are  to  spend  their  life 
in  perpetual  darkness."*  Dominicus  a  Soto  says  that  "  in  the 
(Roman)  Church  it  is  a  most  fixed  point  that  no  little  one 
without  Baptism  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
MALDONATUsf  says  "they  are  condemned,  with  the  goats,  to 
the  left  hand ;  that  at  once  upon  their  death  they  descend  into 
hell."  Canus:]::  "Their  souls,  with  the  bodies  resumed,  are 
thrust  out  into  darkness." 

How  beautiful  and  self- harmonious,  over  against  all  these, 
is  the  view  of  our  Church.     Over  against  the  Cal- 

c5     ^  Lutheran  System. 

vinist,  it  knows  of  no  non- elect  infants,  but 
believes  that  our  children  are  alike  in  the  eyes  of  Infinite 
mercy.  Over  against  the  Pelagians  it  confesses  that  all  chil- 
dren are  sinners  by  nature,  and  believes  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
must  change  those  natures.  Over  against  the  Anabaptists, 
and  the  school  which  is  at  heart  in  sympathy  with  the  Ana- 
baptist theory,  though  it  retains  infant  Baptism  as  a  form, 
our  Church  believes  that  God  has  appointed  Baptism  as  the 
ordinary  channel  through  which  the  Holy  Spirit  works  a 
chanire  in  the  nature  of  a  child.  In  the  fact  that  there  is  an 
ordinary  means  appointed,  our  Church  sees  the  guaranty  that 

*  Lib.  I.  De  Bapt.  ch.  iv.     Lib.  VL  ch.  ii.,  iv.,  vi.  f  On  Matt.  xxv.  23. 

X  Cited  in  Gerhard  Confessio  Catholica,  1679.  Fol.  1110. 


438  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

God  wishes  to  renew  and  save  children,  and  what  so  powerfully 
as  this  prompts  the  blessed  assurance  that  if  God  fails  to  reach 
the  child  in  His  ordinary  way,  He  will  reach  it  in  some  other? 
The  Calvinist  anight  have  doubts  as  to  the  salvation  of  a  dying 
child,  for  to  him  Baptism  is  not  a  sure  guaranty,  and  its  grace 
is  meant  only  for  the  elect ;  the  Baptist  ought  logically  to  have 
doubts  on  his  system  as  to  whether  an  infant  can  be  saved,  for 
his  system  supposes  that  God  has  no  appointed  means  for  con- 
ferring grace  on  it,  and  as  we  are  confessedly  under  a  system 
of  grace  and  providence  which  ordinarily  w^orks  by  means, 
the  presumption  is  almost  irresistible,  that  where  God  has  no 
mean  to  do  a  thing  He  does  not  intend  to  do  it.  But  the  con- 
servative Protestant  cannot  doubt  on  this  point  of  such  tender 
and  vital  interest.  The  baptized  child,  he  feels  assured,  is 
actually  accepted  of  the  Saviour,  and  under  the  benignant 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  infant  Baptism  is  the  gracious 
pledge  that  God  means  to  save  little  children  ;  that  they  have 
a  distinct  place  in  His  plan  of  mercy,  and  that  He  has  a  dis- 
tinct mode  of  putting  them  in  that  place.  When,  then,  in  the 
mysterious  providence  of  this  Lover  of  these  precious  little 
ones,  they  are  cut  off  from  the  reception  of  His  grace  by  its 
ordinary  channel,  our  Church  still  cherishes  the  most  blessed 
assurance,  wrought  by  the  very  existence  of  infant  Baptism, 
that  in  some  other  way  God's  wisdom  and  tenderness  will 
reach  and  redeem  them.  Our  confidence  in  the  uncovenanted 
mercy  of  God  is  strong  in  proportion  to  the  tenacity  with 
which  we  cling  to  Baptism  as  an  ordinary  mean  most  neces- 
sary on  our  part,  if  we  may  possibly  have  it,  or  have  it  given. 
Because  in  the  green  valley,  and  along  the  still  waters  of  the 
visible  Church,  God  has  made  rich  provision  for  these  poor 
sin -stricken  lambs,  —  because  He  has  a  fold  into  which  He 
gathers  them  out  of  the  bleak  world,  therefore  do  w^e  the  more 
firmly  believe  that  if  one  of  them  faint  ere  the  earthly  hands 
which  act  for  Christ  can  bring  it  to  the  fold  and  pasture,  the 
great  Shepherd,  in  His  own  blessed  person,  will  bear  to  it  the 
food  and  the  water  necessary  to  nurture  its  undying  life,  and 
will  take  it  into  the  fold  on  high,  for  which  the  earthly  fold  is 
meant,  at  best,  but  as  a  safeguard  for  a  little  while.     But  the 


THE  LUTHERAN  SYSTEM.  4.39 

earthly  fold  itself,  reared  in  the  valley  of  peace,  which  lies 
along  that  water  which  ripples  with  something  of  a  heavenly' 
music,  is  a  sure  token  of  a  love  which  will  never  fail  of  its 
object  —  a  visible  pledge  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  our  Father 
in  heaven  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish. 

The  Augsburg  Confession,  to  sum  up,  affirms,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  there  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  every  human 
being  should  be  born  again.  It  affirms,  moreover,  that  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  produc- 
tion of  this  change.  These  points  we  have  endeavored  to 
develop.  It  affirms  or  implies,  moreover,  that  Baptism  is  one 
of  the  ordinary  means  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  works  the 
change,  and  that  Baptism  is  the  only  ordinary  means  of  uni- 
versal application,  that  is,  the  only  means  applicable  alike  to 
adults  and  infants. 

In  this  is  implied : 

1.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  ordinarily  works  by  means. 

2.  That  the  Water  and  Word  of  Baptism  is  one  of  those  means. 

3.  That  the  Water  and  Word  of  Baptism  operates  not  as 
the  proper  agent,  but  as  the  means  of  that  agent. 

4.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  may,  and  where  He  loill^  does  work 
the  new  birth  in,  w^ith,  and  under  the  Water  and  Word  of 
Baptism,  so  that  Baptism,  in  its  completest  sense,  is  the  insep- 
arable complex  of  Water,  Word,  and  Spirit,  bringing  heavenly 
grace. 

5.  That  this  grace  is  offered  whenever  Baptism  is  adminis- 
tered, and  is  actually  conferred  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  whenever 
the  individual  receiving  it  does  not  present  in  himself  a  con- 
scious voluntary  barrier  to  its  efficacy.  This  barrier,  in  the 
case  of  an  individual  personally  responsible,  is  unbelief.  In 
the  case  of  an  infant,  there  is  no  conscious  voluntary  barrier, 
and  there  is  a  divinely  wrought  receptivity  of  grace.  The 
objector  says,  the  infant  cannot  voluntarily  receive  the  grace, 
therefore  grace  is  not  given.  We  reverse  the  proposition  and 
reply,  the  infant  cannot  voluntarily  reject  grace,  therefore  the 
grace  is  given.  When  we  speak  of  a  divinely  wrought  recep- 
tivity of  grace,  we  imply  that  whatever  God  otters  in  the  Word 
or  clement  bears  with  the  otter  the  power  of  being  received. 


440  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

When  He  says  to  the  man  with  a  withered  arm,  "  Reach 
forth  thine  arm  !  "  that  which  was  impossible  by  nature  is 
made  possible  by  the  very  word  of  command.  The  Word  and 
Sacraments  }-)er  sc  break  up  the  absoluteness  of  the  natural 
bondage  ;  they  bring  an  instant  possibility  of  salvation.  Grace 
is  in  them  so  far  prevenient  that  he  who  has  them  may  be 
saved,  and  if  he  be  lost,  is  lost  by  his  own  fault  alone. 

Is  our  Confession  warranted  by  Holy  Scripture  in  presenting 
these  views  of  Baptism  ?     We  answer,  unhesitatingly.  It  is. 

The  washing  of  Naaman  (1  Kings  v.  14)  in  the  Jordan,  may 
be  considered  as  a  foreshadowing  of  the  baptismal  idea.  A 
promise  was  given  to  Kaaman,  to  wit,  that  his  leprosy  should 
be  healed.  This  promise  was  conditioned  upon  the  presup- 
posed faith  of  Xaaman,  but  this  faith  was  not  sufficient ;  a 
mean  was  appointed  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  and 
faith  in  the  mean  was  as  absolutely  prerequisite  in  I^aaman 
as  faith  in  the  promise.  Faith  in  God  always  involves  faith 
in  His  means  as  well  as  faith  in  His  promises.  If  ^N'aaman 
had  not  believed  the  promise  he  would  not  have  gone  to  the 
Jordan  ;  but  if  ^aaman  had  believed  the  promise,  and  had 
yet  refused  to  go  and  wash  —  which  was  the  attitude  he  actu- 
ally assumed  at  first  —  he  would  not  have  been  saved  from  the 
leprosy. 

The  washing  of  Kaaman  was  not  an  arbitrary  association, 
but  was  made  of  God  a  real  and  operative  mean,  so  that  in, 
with,  and  under  the  water,  the  divine  power  wrought  which 
healed  his  leprosy.  ISTaaman  w^as  bound  to  the  means,  so 
that  no  element  but  water — no  water  but  that  of  Jordan  — 
would  have  availed  to  cleanse  him.  His  faith  would  not 
cleanse  him  without  the  water.  Abana  and  Pharpar,  and 
every  river  that  rolled,  and  every  sea  that  lifted  its  waves, 
would  have  rolled  and  risen  in  vain,  for  the  water  that  was  to 
do  such  great  things  was  not  mere  water,  but  that  water 
which  God  had  enjoined,  and  with  w^hich  his  promise  was 
bound  up  (Luther:  Smaller  Catechism).  Yet  if  ^N'aaman, 
earnestly  striving  to  reach  the  Jordan  after  the  promise,  had 
been  providentially  prevented,  avc  may  believe  that  God  would 
have  wrought  the  cure  without  the  meaus. 


THE  LUTHERAN  SYSTEM.  441 

Let  us  look  at  the  representations  of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  Mark  xvr.  16.  ''  lie  that  helieveth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  he  saved  ;  but  he  that  helieveth  not  shall  he  damned." 
(The  Saviour  does  not  repeat  the  allusion  to  Baptism  in  the 
second  part  of  this  sentence,  because  he  that  does  not  be- 
lieve is  already  condemned,  whether  baptized  or  not.)  Here 
is  something  mentioned  as  a  mean,  to  wit.  Baptism,  and 
salvation  is  in  some  sense  conditioned  upon  it.  When  men 
read  :  ''  He  that  helieveth,  and  is  not  baptized,  shall  be  saved," 
they  separate  what  God  has  joined,  and  contradict  our  Lord. 
But  here,  doubtless,  our  Lord  draws  the  distinction  in  which 
our  Church  follows  Him :  faith  is  absolutely  essential  to  sal- 
vation, baptism  ordinarily  essential  only. 

2.  Acts  ii.  38.  ''  Then  Peter  said  unto  them.  Repent  and 
BE  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for 
the  remission  of  sin,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Here  Baptism  is  represented  as  one  mean,  and  for 
those  who  could  have  it,  as  the  indispensable  mean,  to  the 
remission  of  sin,  and  the  receiving  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

3.  Acts  xxii.  16.  "  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

4.  Romans  vi.  3.  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  His  death? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  Him  by  baptism  into  death." 

5.  1  CoR.  XII.  13.  "  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized 
into  one  body."  Here  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Bap- 
tism, and  the  fact  that  in  Baptism  rightly  received  we  are 
ingrafted  into  the  one  body  of  Christ,  are  distinctly  taught. 

6.  Gal.  hi.  27.  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  Baptism,  in  its  w^hole 
compass  and  intent,  is  not  meant  to  introduce  into  mere  out- 
ward relations,  but  bears  with  it  a  grace  by  which  he  who 
rightly  uses  it  is  invested  with  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

7.  CoL.  II.  12.  ''Buried  with  Him  in  Baptism,  wherein 
(i.  e.  in  Baptism)  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God." 

8.  1  Peter  hi.  20.  "  The  ark  ....  wherein  few,  that  is, 
eidit  souls,  were  saved  by  water.     The  like  figure  whereunto 


442  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us ;"  or,  more  literally, 
"  Which  (that  is,  water)  doth  now  save  you  also,  (that  is)  the 
antitype  Baptism  (doth  now  save  you)." 

9.  John  hi.  5.  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  It  is  on  this 
verse  preeminently  the  phraseology  of  the  part  of  the  Con- 
fession now  under  consideration  is  based.  It  embraces  the 
same  class  of  persons  of  which  our  Confession  speaks.  The 
Confession  speaks  of  "all  men  naturally  born  after  Adam;" 
the  Saviour  speaks  of  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,"  that 
is,  all  our  race,  infant  and  adult.  Our  Confession  says  they 
have  sin  ;  our  Saviour  says  they  are  flesh,  that  is,  are  corrupt. 
The  Confession  says  they  must  be  born  again,  in  order  to  be 
saved ;  our  Lord  says  that  unless  they  are  born  again,  they 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  Confession  attributes 
the  new  birth  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  agent,  so  does  our  Lord ; 
the  Confession  attributes  a  part  in  the  new  birth  to  Baptism, 
so  does  our  Lord.     We  must  be  born  again  of  water. 

Alford,  not  a  Lutheran,  does  not  go  too  far  when  he  says: 
"  There  can  be  no  doubt,  on  any  honest  interpretation  of  the 
words,  that  '  to  be  born  of  water,'  refers  to  the  token  or  Out- 
ward SIGN  OF  Baptism  :  '  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit,'  to  the  thing 
signified,  or  inward  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  All  attempts 
to  get  rid  of  these  two  plain  facts  have  sprung  from  doc- 
trinal prejudices,  by  which  the  views  of  expositors  have  been 
warped.  Such  we  have  in  Calvin,  Grotius,  Cocceius,  Lampe, 
Tholuck,  and  others.  All  the  better  and  deeper  expositors 
have  recognized  the  co-existence  of  the  two  —  water  and  ths 
Spirit.  So,  for  the  most  part  the  ancients :  So  Llicke,  in  his 
last  edition,  De  Wette,  Meander,  Stier,  Olshausen.  Baptism, 
complete,  with  water  and  the  Spirit,  is  the  admission  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Those  who  have  received  the  outward  sign 
AND  the  spiritual  GRACE  havc  entered  into  that  kingdom. 
...  It  is  observable  that  here  as  ord^n^arily,  the  outward 
sign  comes  first,  and  then  the  spiritual  grace,  vouchsafed  in 
and  BY  MEANS  of  it,  if  duly  received." 

10.  Ephes.  v.  25-27.  "  Christ  loved  the  Church,  and  gave 
Himself  for  it,  that  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with 


THE   CALVINISTIC  SYSTEM.  443 

THE  WASHING  OF  WATER  by  the  Word,  that  He  may  present  it 
to  Himself  a  glorious  Church." 

11.  IIeb.  X.  22.  "Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in 
full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water." 

On  this  verse  Alford  remarks :  "  There  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  this  clause  refers  directly  to  Christian  baptism. 
The  '  washing  of  water,'  Eph.  v.  26,  and  '  the  washing  of 
regeneration,'  Titus  iii.  5,  and  the  express  mention  of  '  our 
bodies  '  here,  as  distinguished  from  '  our  hearts,'  stamps  this 
interpretation  with  certainty,  .  .  .  for 'our  bodies '  confines 
the  reference  to  an  outward  act.  And  so  Theophylact,  Theo- 
doret,  (Ecumenius,  etc.,  Bohme,  Kuinoel,  Tholuck,  De  Wette, 
Bleek,  Llinemann,  Delitzsch,  and  the  majority  of  commenta- 
tors. Still,  in  maintaining  the  externality  of  the  words,  as 
referring,  and  referring  solely  to  Baptism,  we  must  remember 
that  Baptism  itself  is  not  a  mere  extetmal  rite,  but  at  every 
mention  of  it  carries  the  thought  further,  to  wit,  to  that  spir- 
itual w^ashing  of  which  it  is  itself  symbolical  and  sacramental." 

According  to  Delitzsch,  "  The  washing  the  body  with  pure 
WATER  is  purely  sacramental,  the  effect  of  baptism  taken  in  its 
whole  blessed  meaning  and  fulfilment  as  regards  our  natural 
existence.  As  priests  we  are  sprinkled,  as  priests  we  are 
bathed  .  .  .  washed  in  holy  Baptism." 

12.  1  John  v.  6-8.  "This  is  He  that  came  by  water  and 
blood,  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water 
and  blood.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth, 
the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood :  and  these  three  agree  in 
one." 

13.  1  Cor.  vi.  11.  ''  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sancti- 
fied, but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
BY  the  Spirit  of  our  God." 

14.  Titus  hi.  5.  "  N'ot  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we 
have  done,  but  according  to  His  mercy  He  saved  us  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  He  shed  on  us  abundantly." 

Alford  says :  "  Observe  that  here  is  no  figure :  the  words 
are  literal :  Baptism  is  taken  as  in  all  its  completion,  the  out- 


444  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

ward,  visible  sign  accompanied  by  the  inward  spiritual  grace ; 
and  as  thus  complete,  it  not  only  represents,  but  is  the  new 
birth,  60  that,  as  in  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  it  is  not  the  mere  outward 
act  or  fact  of  Baptism  to  which  we  attach  such  high  and 
glorious  epithets,  but  that  complete  Baptism  by  water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whereof  the  first  cleansing  by  water  is,  indeed, 
the  ordinary  sign  and  seal,  but  whereof  the  glorious  indwell- 
ing Spirit  of  God  is  the  only  efiicient  cause  and  continuous 
agent.  Baptismal  regeneration  is  the  distinguishing  doc- 
trine of  the  new  covenant  (Matt.  iii.  11,)  but  let  us  take  care 
that  we  know  and  bear  in  mind  what  '  Baptism  '  means :  not 
the  mere  ecclesiastical  act,  not  the  mere  fact  of  reception,  by 
that  act,  among  God's  professing  people,  but  that  completed 
by  the  Divine  act,  manifested  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  heart  and  through  the  life." 

The  words  of  Calvin  on  this  same  passage  deserve  to  be  pro- 
duced :  "It  ought  to  be  accepted  as  a  principle  among  good 
men,  that  God  does  not  trifle  with  us  by  empty  figures,  but  by 
His  own  power  performs  that  inwardly  which  by  the  external 
sign  he  exhibits  outwardly.     Wherefore  Baptism  is  fitly 

AND    TRULY    CALLED    THE    LAYER    OF    REGENERATION.       He  rightly 

holds  the  power  and  use  of  the  Sacraments,  who  so  connects 
the  thing  and  the  sign,  that  he  neither  makes  the  sign  empty 
and  inefiicacious,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  for  the  sake  of  its 
honor,  detracts  from  the  Holy  Spirit  what  is  due  to  Him." 

This  will  suffice  to  show  how  amply,  by  the  very  text  of 
Holy  Scripture,  and  even  by  the  confession  of  interpreters  who 
are  not  of  our  Church,  her  Confession  is  authorized  in  declar- 
ing that  Baptism  is  one  of  the  ordinary  means  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  working  the  new  birth. 

Xni.     That  Baptism  is  the  only  ordinary  means  of  univer- 

Thirteenth  ^^^  applicatiou  wiU  be  denied  by  two  classes  alone. 

Thcfiis.  Baptism  The  first  class  are  those  who  deny  that  Baptism  is 

tlie  only  ordinary  ,,  i     ,1  •    j. 

means  of  uMiver-  a  mcau  of  gracc  at  all,  and  those  errorists  are 
Bai  application,  aij-^ady  sufiicicntly  answered  by  the  passages  we 
have  given  from  the  Word  of  God.  The  second  class  are 
those  who  deny  that  infants  should  be  baptized,  and  who,  con- 
sequently, maintain  that  there  is  no  mean  of  grace  provided 


PELAGIUS.  445 

for  them.  This  error,  so  far  as  its  discussion  properly  comes 
under  the  head  of  Original  Sin,  has  ah-eady  been  met.  The 
ampler  discussion  of  the  question  belongs  to  the  Article  on 
Baptism. 

Here  then  we  reach  the  close  of  the  positive  part  of  the  Arti- 
cle of  the  Augsburg  Confession  on  Original  Sin :  the  rest  is 
antithetical.  This  Article  of  the  Confession,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  grounded  in  every  line,  and  in  every  word,  on  God's  sure 
testimony,  and  proves,  in  common  with  the  other  parts  of  that 
matchless  Symbol  in  which  it  stands,  that  when  our  fathers 
sought  in  God's  Word  for  light,  sought  with  earnest  prayer, 
and  w^ith  the  tears  of  holy  ardor,  for  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  the  deep  meaning  of  His  Word,  they  sought  not  in 
vain. 

XIV.  In  maintaining  the  true  doctrine  of  Original  Sin, 
our  Church,  of  necessity,  condemns  :  Fourteenth 

1.  The  Pelagians;  that  is,  it  condemns  them  in  ismTn  antuhelu 
their  doctrine,  not  by  any  means  in  their  person,  *<>  the  scriptural 

•^  ,  ••■  doctrine  of  Origi- 

80  far  as  that  is  separable  from  their  doctrine.  nai  sin. 

2.  It  condemns,  in  the  same  way,  all  others  who  deny  that 
the  vice  of  origin  is  sin ;  and 

3.  It  condemns  all  who  contend  that  man,  by  his  own 
strength,  as  a  rational  being,  can  be  justified  before  God  ;  and 
Avho  thus  diminish  the  glory  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  and  of 
His  benefits. 

Pelagius  was  a  British  monk,  who  flourished  under  the 
Emperors  Arcadius,  Theodosius,  and  Honorius. 
About  the  year  415  he  began  to  teach  unscriptural  '  ^  '*^""* 
views  in  regard  to  the  freedom  of  the  human  will.  Violently 
opposing  the  Manich?eans,  who  supposed  a  corruption  in  man 
which  involved  an  essential  evil  in  his  very  substance,  he  ran 
to  the  opposite  extreme. 

The  errors  of  Pelagius,  w^hich  our  fathers  had  in  view  in 
this  solemn  rejection  of  them  in  the  Confession,  are  not  diffi- 
cult to  ascertain.  Our  confessors  knew  the  views  of  Pelao:iu3 
mainly  from  the  powerful  confutation  of  them  in  the  works  of 
Augustine,  who  styled  him  the  enemy  of  grace,  and  to  these 
we  must  go  to  ascertain  what  they  meant  to  condemn  in  con- 


446  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

demning  Pelagianism.  This  is  the  more  necessary,  as  there 
are  modern  writers  who  maintain  that  Pelagius  was  not  the 
errorist  Augustine  supposed  him  to  be,  and  that  much  of  the 
controversy  was  really  a  war  of  terms.  We  do  not  believe 
this  theory  to  be  correct  ;  we  are  satisfied  that  in  all  the  main 
points,  Augustine  perfectly  understood  and  fairly  represented 
the  position  of  Pelagius.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  it  cannot  be 
disputed  that,  to  understand  the  meaning  of  our  Confession, 
we  must  take  what  was  the  accepted  meaning  of  terms  when 
it  was  framed.  The  characteristics  we  now  give  of  Pelagian- 
ism are  based  mainly  upon  the  statements  of  Augustine,  and, 
for  the  most  part,  are  literally  translated  from  his  very  words. 

1.  The  Pelagians  "  denied  that  little  children  born  after 
Adam  contract  from  their  very  birth  the  contagion  of  the  old 
death."  The  Augsburg  Confession  maintains,  on  the  contrary, 
that  "  after  the  fall  of  Adam,  all  human  beings,  born  in  the 
order  of  nature,  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin." 

2.  "  Little  children  are  born  without  any  fetter  of  original 
sin."     They  neither  contract  nor  have  it  from  their  parents. 

3.  "  There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  that  they,  by  a  second 
or  new  birth,  should  be  released  from  this." 

4.  The  Pelagians  did  not  deny  the  duty  of  baptizing  infants, 
nor  did  they  dare  to  go  so  violently  against  the  consciousness 
and  faith  of  the  entire  Church  as  to  deny  that  Baptism  is  a 
mean  of  regeneration.  Those  who  deny  this  in  our  day  are 
more  Pelagian  than  Pelagius  himself.  The  Pelagians  con- 
tended that  infants  "  are  baptized,  that  by  regeneration  they 
may  be  admitted  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  being  thereby  trans- 
ferred from  what  is  good  to  what  is  better,  not  that  by  that 
renewal  they  w^ere  set  free  from  an}'  evil  of  the  old  obligation." 

o.  "  If  children  were  unbaptized,  they  would  have,  indeed,  a 
place  out  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  yet,  nevertheless,  a  blessed 
and  eternal  life,"  in  virtue  of  their  personal  innocence. 

6.  "  If  Adam  had  not  sinned  he  would,  nevertheless,  have 
died  bodily,  his  death  not  being  the  desert  of  his  sin,  but 
arising  from  the  condition  of  nature."  Death  is,  therefore, 
not  the  penalty  of  sin.  These  illustrations  are  extracted  from 
Augustine's  Book  on  Heresies  (chap.  Ixxxviii). 


THE  ANABAPTISTS— ZWINGLl  447 

In  the  Second  Book  of  Augustine  on  Perseverance  (chap,  ii.), 
he  Bays :  "  There  are  three  points  on  which  the  Church  Catho- 
lic mainly  opposes  the  Pelagians. 

7.  "One  of  these  doctrines  with  which  she  opposes  them  is, 
that  the  grace  of  God  is  not  given  because  of  our  merits. 

8.  "  The  second  is,  that  whatever  may  be  the  righteousness 
of  a  man,  no  one  lives  in  this  corruptible  body  without  sins  of 
some  kind. 

9.  "  The  third  is,  that  man  contracts  liability  by  the  sin  of 
the  "first  man,  and  would  come  under  the  fetter  of  condemna- 
tion were  not  the  accountability  which  is  contracted  by  gen- 
eration dissolved  by  regeneration." 

10.  In  the  same  book  he  attributes  to  the  Pelagians  the  doc- 
trine that  "  Adam's  sin  injured  no  one  but  himself." 

The  following  statements,  drawn  from  other  reliable  sources, 
will  further  illustrate  the  characteristics  of  Pelagianism : 

1.  Pelagius  originally  asserted  that  man  without  grace  can 
perform  all  the  commands  of  God.  Under  the  pressure  of  the 
urgency  of  his  brethren  he  subsequently  admitted  that  some 
aid  of  Divine  grace  is  desirable,  but  only  that  we  might  more 
EASILY  do  God's  commands. 

2.  That  concupiscence  or  desire,  which  is  in  man  by  nature, 
is  good,  and  that  the  whole  nature  of  man,  even  after  the  fall, 
remains  entire  and  incorrupt,  so  that  even  in  spiritual  things 
he  could  do  good,  and  fulfil  the  will  of  God. 

3.  That  sin  is  contracted  entirely  by  example  and  imitation, 
not  at  all  by  propagation. 

The  confessors,  in  the  Antithesis,  may  have  had  reference, 
moreover,  to  the  Anabaptists,  who  maintained  :  n.  The  Ana- 

1.  "  That  sin  was  so  taken  away  by  the  death  of   ^'^^'''''■ 
Christ  that  infants,  under  the  N'ew  Testament,  are  born  with- 
out sin,  and  are  innocent,  the  servitude  of  death  alone  excepted ; 

2.  "And,  therefore,  deny  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized, 
since  they  are  born  subject  to  no  sin." 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  perfect  agreement  among  the  writers 
on  our  Confession,  whether  Zwin2:li  is  alluded  to 

.    -         .  „  ,  -  ?       ^  .  III.    Zwingli. 

in  the  Antithesis.     Our  old  standard  writers  are 

almost  unanimous  in  believing  that  he  was,  at  least,  one  of 


448  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

those  alluded  to.  Such  is  the  view,  for  example,  of  Ment- 
zer,  Gerhard,  Hoffmann,  Carpzov,  Walch,  and  Baumgarten. 
Among  recent  writers  C(ELL>-*  devotes  a  considerable  part  of 
a  special  treatise  to  the  establishing  of  this  point,  and  places  it 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  It  is  true  that  Zwingli  signed  the 
Articles  of  the  ^larburg  Colloquy  (1529),  which  were  prepared 
by  Luther,  the  fourth  of  which  treats  of  Original  Sin,  but  which 
shows,  in  common  with  the  others,  that  Luther  designed  to  make 
the  way  to  harmony  of  view  as  easy  as  could  be  consistent  with 
principle.  In  the  Confession  which  Zwingli  prepared  to  be  pre- 
sented to  Charles  V.  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  he  says:  "  Whether 
we  will,  or  will  not,  w^e  are  forced  to  admit  that  original  sin,  as 
it  is  in  the  sons  of  Adam,  is  not  properly  sin,  as  has  just  been 
explained.  For  it  is  not  a  deed  contrary  to  the  law.  It  is, 
therefore,  properly  a  disease  and  a  condition,"  "  Infants  have 
not  guilt,  but  have  the  punishment  and  penalty  of  guilt,  to 
wit,  a  condition  of  servitude,  and  the  state  of  convicts.  If, 
therefore,  it  is  right  to  call  it  guilt,  because  it  bears  the  inflic- 
tions of  guilt,  I  do  not  object  to  the  term."  That  is  he  did  not 
object  to  the  term,  provided  it  was  clearly  understood  that  the 
term  meant  nothing.  In  his  book  on  Baptism,  Zwingli  says: 
"  There  is  nothing  in  the  children  of  believers,  even  before 
Baptism,  which  can  properly  be  called  sin." 

Altixg,  the  distinguished  Reformed  divine  who  wrote  an 
Exegesis,  Logical  and  Theological,  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, declares  that  it  is  a  calumny  to  assert  that  Zwingli 
denied  that  original  sin  is  truly  sin,  and  says  that  he  merely 
denied  that  it  was  actual  sin.  But  if  by  denying  that  it  is 
actual,  he  merely  meant  that  it  is  not  a  sin  committed  by 
deed,  he  denied  what  no  one  affirms  ;  but  if  he  meant  that  it 
was  not  a  real  sin,  then  he  denied  the  very  thing  which, 
according  to  Alting,  it  is  a  calumny  to  charge  upon  him. 
Zwingli  w^as  a  patriot,  and  as  such  we  admire  him,  but  he 
was,  as  compared  with  (Ecolampadius,  not  to  mention  Calvin,  an 
exceedingly  poor  theologian.  Justus  Jonas  says  of  him  that 
he  occupied  himself  with  letters  in  the  face  of  the  anger  of  the 
Muses  and  of  the  unwillins^ness  of  Minerva  —  "  Iratis  Musis  et 

♦  Confess.  Melunclithonis  ct  Zwinglii,  etc.,  1830. 


Z  WING  LI.  449 

invita  Minerva."     It  is  not  for  their  intrinsic  value,  but  for  his- 
torical reasons,  that  it  is  important  to  follow  him  in  his  views. 
He  certainly  did  not  hold,  thoroughly  and  consistently,  the  doc- 
trine which  is  coached  in  the  language  of  our  Confession,  that 
"  original  sin  is  truly  sin."     llis  fallacy  is  the  ordinary  one,  that 
the  character  of  sin  is  in  the  deed,  not  in  the  essence  of  moral 
nature,  which  originates   the  deed ;  that   sin    cannot  6e,  but 
must  always  he  done.     In  other  words,  he  makes  a  real,  not  a 
merely  phenomenal  difference  between  sin  in  us,  and  sin  by  us  ; 
the  sin  we  have^  and  the  sin  we  do.     Every  such  distinction  is 
Pelao^ian.     Zwins-li  illustrates  the  condition  of  the  race  as  that 
of  the  children  born  to  one  who  has  been  captured  in  war. 
"  Those  born  of  him  are  slaves,  not  by  their  fault,  guilt,  or 
crime,  but  by  the  condition  which  followed  a  fault,  for  the 
parent  from  w^hom  they  are  born  deserved  this  by  his  crime. 
The  children  have  no  guilt."     All  this  naturally  means  that 
our  race  inherits  the  penalties  of  guilt,  but  not  guilt  itself. 
They  are  innocent,  but  are  treated  as  guilty.    In  God's  thoughts 
they  are  spotless  ;  in  God's  acts  they  are  polluted.    The  provi- 
dence of  God,  and  the  actual  course  of  His  administration,  are 
not  a  reflection  of  His  judgment,  but  a  perversion  of  it.    Zwin- 
gli's  illustration  only  aggravates  the  case.     He  takes  one  of 
the  most  atrocious  acts  of  human  cruelty  towards  enemies  in 
war,  and  finds  in  it  a  parallel  to  God's  dealings  with  man. 
His  theory  leaves  the  most  difficult  facts  untouched,  while  it 
removes  the  only  possible  solution  of  them.     Of  all  modes  of 
looking  at  the  subject,  this  seems  to  be  the  most  confused  and 
objectionable.     It  is  simply  self-conflicting  Pelagianism.    Pela- 
gianism  denied  both  the  effect  and  the  cause.     Zwingli  leaves 
the  effect  and  denies  the  cause.     In  Zwingli's  letter  to  Urban 
Rhegius  (1525),  he  says:  "  What  could  be  clearer  than  that  orig- 
inal sin  is  not  sin,  but  a  disease?  What  could  be  weaker  and 
more  alien  to  Scripture  than  to  sa}^  that  this  calami«ty  is  alle- 
viated by  the  laver  of  Baptism,  and  is  not  merely  a  disease?  " 
In  the  Book  on  Baptism,   written  the  same   year,  he   says: 
"  We  affirm  that  original  sin  is  only  that  disease  which  we 
derive  by  inheritance.     Therefore,  original  sin  does  not  merit 
damnation.     How  can  it  be  that  that  which  is  disease  and 

29 


450  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

contagion   merits   the   name   of   sin,  or  is   sin  in  reality 
(re vera)  ? " 

The   language  of  the    condemnatory  clause   also  refers    to 

the  Pelagianisra  of  the  Scholastics,  and  of  many  of 

pianizing  touch-  thc  Romlsh  Cliurch  contemporary  with  the  confes- 

^'"®-  sors.     The  Romish  Church  praises  Augustine,  and 

follows  Pelagius. 

It  also,  by  anticipation,  condemns  the  Pelagianizing  ten- 
dencies of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  of  the  theologians  who 
defended  its  decisions,  among  whom  the  Jesuits  Avere  pre- 
eminent. 

It  also,  in  the  same  way,  condemns  the  Socinian,  Armin- 
ian,  and  Rationalistic  Theology,  and  the  schools  which  ap- 
proximate it.  In  short,  all  teaching  which  denies  that  the 
fault  of  origin  is  sin  —  all  teaching  that  favors  the  idea  that 
man  by  his  own  power  of  reason  can  be  justified  before  God  — 
all  teaching  that  tends  to  diminish  the  glory  of  the  merit  and 
of  the  benefit  of  Christ,  is  here  condemned. 

In  fairly  estimating  much  of  the  plausible  sophistry  by 
which  Pelasianism  is  maintained,  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
even  when  actual  sin  takes  place,  the  condition  or  state  of  sin 
must  be  antecedent  to  the  act.  A  being  who  has  ever  been 
holy,  must  cease  to  he  holy,  before  he  can  will  or  do  sin.  This 
is  the  necessar}^  order  of  succession  and  of  conception,  even  if 
it  be  granted  that  these  stages  are  synchronal.  ISTot  all  real 
precessions  are  precessions  in  time.  The  doing  originates  in 
the  icilUng^  the  Killing  presupposes  the  will  as  a  faculty,  the 
will  as  a  faculty  must  be  in  a  determinate  condition  antecedent 
to  a  determinate  act,  and  the  act  takes  its  being  and  character 
from  the  condition.  There  can  be  no  moral  act  without  ante- 
cedent moral  condition.  The  fondition  of  the  will  may  result 
in  four  ways : 

I.  It  may  be  concreatc,  as  God  establishes  it :  or, 

II.  It  may  be  affected  by  influences /rom,  without^ — it  may  be 
tested,  tried,  or  tempted  in  the  nature  of  things,  or  by  another 
will :  or, 

III.  It  may  result  from  a  self  -  determining  pow.er  in  the  will 
as  a  faculty  :  or, 


OTUER  PELAGIANIZING   TEACHERS.  451 

IV.  It  may  be  innate  and  connate. 

I.  The  first  condition  of  the  will  of  angels,  and  of  Adam, 
was  concreate  ;  it  was  holy  and  untempted. 

II.  Its  second  condition  was  that  of  the  angels,  tested  in  the 
nature  of  things  by  the  essential  character  of  virtue,  which,  on 
one  side,  is  the  negative  of  moral  evil,  the  possibility  of  which 
evil  is  implied  in  the  very  denial  of  it,  and  by  moral  freedom, 
which  is  not  continuous!}-  possible  without  choice.     It  is  also 
the  condition  of  Eve's  will  affected  by  the  nature  of  things 
within  and  without  her,  and  by  the  w411  of  the  serpent.     It  is 
also  the   condition   of  Adam's  will  tested  by  the  nature  of 
things,  by  the  now  corrupted  will  of  his  wife,  and  through  her 
by  the  will  of  the  serpent.     So  far  as  the  fruit  attracted  Eve 
simply  as   pleasant  to   eat,  and  beautiful  to  look    upon,  the 
attraction  was  purely  natural,  and  morally  indifferent.     The 
prohibitory  command  meant  that  the  natural  instincts,  even  of 
an  unfallen  creature,  are  not  sufficient  for  the  evolution  of  the 
highest  moral  character.,  but  that  to  this  character  it  is  essen- 
tial that  there  shall  be  the  voluntary  and  continuous  con- 
formity of  the  will  of  the  creature  to  the  will  of  the  Creator. 
Original  righteousness  is,  per  se^  a  condition  of  the  will,  and  is 
antecedent  to  the  first  act  of  will.     Hoiv  a  will,  whose  original 
condition  is  holy,  can  come  to  a  sinful  condition,  as  it  involves 
an  ultimate  principle,  cannot  be  grasped  by  man,  yet,  what- 
ever may  furnish  the  occasion,  the   cause  is  the  will  itself: 
*'  The  cause  of  sin  is  the  will  of  the  wicked  "  (causa  peccati  est 
voluntas  malorum).   "  The  perverted  will  (verkehrte  Wille)  ivork- 
eth  sin  .  .  .  which  will  has  tarned  itself  from  God  to  evil  (zum 
Argen)."     These  words  imply  that  sin  the  act,  is  the  result  of 
sin  the  condition.     The  condition  of  the  will  is  the  cause  of  the 
moral  act  as  moral,  and  the  perverted  condition  of  the  will  the 
cause  of  the  moral  acts  being  perverted^  that  is,  sinful.     We 
reach  the  last  point  to  which  the  mind  of  man  can  go,  when 
we  assert  that  in  the  self- determining  power  of  a  finite  holy 
will  lies  the  possibility  of  its  becoming  an  unholy  will.     We 
may  say  that  the  finite  is,  in  the  nature  o/*  things,  liable  to  the 
possibility  of  sin,  that  the  positive  good  of  freedom  in  the 

*  Aug.  Conf.  Art.  xix. 


452  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

creature  involves  the  incidental  evil  of  the  power  of  abuse. 
It  is  easy  to  multiply  these  common-places  of  the  argument. 
But  none  of  these  solutions  bear  upon  the  process  of  the  change 
of  condition.  They  may  show  that  the  change  is  possible,  but 
they  do  not  show  how  it  takes  place.  Xor,  indeed,  is  a  solution 
of  the  question  of  the  how  necessary  here. .  The  philosophy  of  the 
mode  in  no  way  affects  the  certainty  that  the  moral  condition  of 
the  will  precedes  and  determines  its  acts.  While  a  will  is  holy 
in  condition^  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  be  unholy  in  act.  The 
act  is  what  the  condition  is.  The  act  has  no  moral  character 
except  as  it  derives  it  from  the  condition  of  the  will  in  which 
it  originated.  Things  are  not  moral  or  immoral,  only  j^ersons 
are.  The  essential  sin  never  comes  to  being  in  the  thought  or 
act,  but  is,  and  must  be,  in  being  before  there  can  be  a  sinful 
thought  or  sinful  act.  The  thought  or  act  is  not  the  root  of 
sin,  but  sin  is  the  root  of  the  thought  and  act.  "  Out  of  the 
heart  proceed  evil  thoughts" — that  is,  evil  thought  is  the  out- 
going from  an  evil  heart  —  act  from  condition.  "  Every  imagi- 
nation of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil."  "  Heart  " 
implies  will  in  condition,  and  to  this  the  "imagination  of 
the  thoughts  "  is  secondary  and  derivative.  The  act  is  deter- 
mined, the  will  is  determining,  and  the  self-existent  cause  of 
its  particular  determination,  beyond  which  cause  Ave  cannot  go, 
is  its  condition.  Each  of  the  derivative  conditions  supposes  a 
preexistent  one,  and  when  we  reach,  as  we  soon  must  in  this 
retrospection,  the  first  condition,  which  is  the  sine  qua  non  of 
the  second,  as  the  second  is  of  the  third,  we  reach  a  point  at 
which  we  are  forced  to  acknowledge  that  all  actual  sin,  in  some 
measure,  results  from  a  primary  condition  of  the  will.  As  in 
the  order  of  nature  there  must  be  the  process  of  thinking  before 
the  result  of  thought,  and  there  must  be  mind  before  thinking, 
and  a  particular  and  specific  condition  of  mind  before  the  par- 
ticular and  specific  thinking  which  eventuates  in  the  particu- 
lar and  specific  thought,  so  must  there  be  the  process  of  moral 
activity  before  the  resulting  moral  act,  and  a  faculty  of  will 
before  the  process  of  moral  activity,  and  a  particular  and  spe- 
cific condition  of  the  faculty  of  will  before  the  particular  and 
specific  willing  which  reveals  itself  in  the  particular  moral  act. 


OTHER  PELAGIANIZING    TEACHERS.  453 

When  we  say  that  the  morality  of  an  act  is  conditioned  by  the 
will,  we  mean  simply  that  the  character  of  the  act  is  derived 
from  the  condition  of  the  will.  The  sin  is  really  in  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Avill.  The  sin  done  is  but  phenomenal  to  the  real 
sin.  In  this  respect  all  sin  is  essentially  original;  and  of  the 
two  extremes  of  statement,  it  would  be  more  logical  to  assert 
that  all  sin  is  in  its  own  nature  original,  and  no  sin  in  proper 
essence  actual,  than  to  assume  that  all  sin  is  actual,  and  no  sin 
original.  Luther  :  ^  "  Original  sin,  or  sin  of  nature,  sin  of 
person,  is  the  real  canliiial  sin  (HauptsUnde).  Did  it  not  exist, 
no  actual  sin  would  exist.  It  is  not  a  sin  which  is  done^  like  all 
other  sins,  but  it  Z5,  it  lives.,  and  does  all  sins,  and  is  the  essential 
(wesentliche)  sin." 

If  this  estimate  of  the  bearing  of  the  condition  of  will  upon 
the  controversy  between  the  Church  and  Pelagianism  be  cor- 
rect, it  is  evident  that  the  great  question  at  issue  is.  In  w^hich 
of  the  four  coyiditions  enumerated  is  the  will  of  man  now  ? 

I.  It  is  Pelagian  to  assert  that  the  'primary  condition  of  the 
will  of  man  now  is  that  of  concreate  holiness,  as  it  was  endowed 
in  the  beginning  by  God.  "  Every  man  is  born  in  the  same 
perfection  wherein  Adam  was  before  his  fall,  save  only  the  per- 
fection of  age." 

II.  It  is  Pelagian  to  assert  that  the  primary  condition  of  the 
will  is  now  made  by  injiuences  from  without.  "  Adam  endam- 
aged .  .  his  posterity  only  by  his  example,  so  far  forth  as  they 
imitate  him."  "There  is  no  original  sin,  or  corruption  of 
human  nature." 

III.  It  is  Pelagian  to  assert  that  the  primary  condition  of  the 
will  now  is,  or  results  from,  a  self-determining  exercise  of  the 
will.  "  Man  of  himself  is  able  to  resist  the  strongest  tempta- 
tions." "  The  well-using  of  free-will  and  of  natural  powers  is 
the  cause  of  predestination." 

IV.  It  is  Pelagian  to  deny  that  the  present  condition  of  our 
will  is  inherited  by  natural  descent :  "  Adam  by  his  sin  en- 
damaged only  himself,"  or,  to  assert  that  though  our  pres- 
ent condition  of  will  may  be  connate,  yet  that  this  connate 
condition  is  either 

^  Hauss-postilla  on  the  Gospel  for  New  Year. 


454  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION: 

1.  Like  that  of  concreate  holiness;  or, 

2.  Like  that  of  Adam  when  his  condition  was  that  of 
tempted  holiness,  w^ith  the  natural  power  of  successful  resist- 
ance ;  or, 

3.  That  of  self-determination,  which  still  freely  exercises 
itself;  or, 

4.  That  of  non-moral  passivity,  neutrality,  or  indifference. 
Over  against  these,  the  Scripture  view  is : 

I.  That  man's  will  is  not  in  a  condition  of  concreate  holiness, 
but  has  lost  that  condition. 

II.  That  the  positive  element  which  affects  its  condition  is 
not  external^  as  example,  education,  or  temptation,  but  internal, 
corrupt  desire,  or  concupiscence. 

III.  That  its  condition  allows  of  no  self -determining  power 
in  the  sphere  of  grace. 

IV.  That  this  condition  is  connate^  is  ipro'perly  called  sin,  is 
really  sin,  justly  liable  in  its  own  nature  to  the  penalties  of 
sin  ;  that  without  the  work  of  grace  wrought,  it  would  have 
brought  eternal  death  to  the  whole  race,  and  does  now  bring 
death  to  all  to  whom  that  work  of  grace  is  not,  either  ordi- 
narily or  extraordinarily,  applied  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Faithful  to  these  doctrines,  and  over  against  all  the  tenden- 
cies which  conflict  with  them,  our  Confession,  both  in  its  Thesis 
and  Antithesis,  holds  forth  the  truth  of  the  exceeding  sinful- 
ness and  the  utter  helplessness  of  man's  nature,  the  goodness 
of  God,  the  all  -  sufficiency  of  Christ,  and  the  freeness  of 
justification. 

Looking  at  original  sin  as  God's  Word  and  our  Church 
teaches  us  to  regard  it,  we  shall 

See  its  true  character,  and  deplore  the  misery  it  has 
wrought. 

We  shall  go  to  Christ,  the  great  Physician,  to  be  healed 
of  it,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  by  His  own  means.  Bap- 
tism and  the  Word,  applies  for  Christ  the  remedy  we  need; 
taking  of  the  things  that  are  Christ's,  and  making  them  ours. 

AVe  shall  be  led  to  maintain  a  continual  struggle  against 
it ;  we  shall  watch,  pray,  and  strive,  knowing  that  through 
grace  we  are  already  redeemed  from  its  curse  ;    that  by  the 


OTHER  PELAGIANIZING   TEACHERS.  455 

same  grace  we  shall  be  more  and  more  redeemed  here  from 
its  power,  and  at  last  be  wholly  purged  from  it,  and  shall 
form  a  part  of  that  Church,  loved  and  glorious,  which  shall 
show  no  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  shall  stand 
before  her  Lord  holy  and  without  blemish. 

And  now,  in  the  language  in  which  the  incomparable  Ger- 
hard closes  his  discussion  of  original  sin,  let  our  words  be: 
*'  To  Ilim  that  hath  died  for  us,  that  sin  might  die  in  us ;  to 
Him  who  came  that  He  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  Devil, 
and  might  restore  to  us  the  blessings  lost  by  the  Fall ;  to  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour,  be  praise,  honor,  and  glory,  world  without 
end.     Amen ! " 


A: 


coi.x:oTJ.r^) 

N.YOKh. 


THE  PERSON  OF  OUR  LORD  AND  HIS  SACRAMENTAL 

PRESENCE.  — THE  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN  AND 

THE  REFORMED  DOCTRINES  COMPARED.* 


AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.     ART.  III.) 


IN  the  January  number  of  the  Eibliotheca  Sacra,  for  1863, 
the  opening  article  is  a  very  elaborate  one,  from  the  pen  of 
,  ^  ,  ,    ,    Rev.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  D.  D.    Its  subject  is  the  "  Ger- 

I.Dr.Gerbarts  '  ^ 

Article.  man  Reformed  Church."     It  was  read  at  the  time 

with  special  interest,  as  the  Puritanism  of  New  England, 
which  has  been  supposed  to  carry  out  the  Reformed  principles 
to  their  furthest  extreme,  and  the  German  Reformed  Church, 
in  which  those  principles  were  more  modified  and  subdued 
than  in  any  unquestionably  Calvinistic  Church,  were  brought 

^Brentius:  DePersonali  Uuione,  Tubing.  1561.  4to.;  Sent,  de  Lib.  Bullinger. 
Tubing.  1561.  4to.:  DeMajestat.  Domin.  nostri.  Frankf.  1562.  4to.;  Recogn.  proph. 
et  Apostol.  doctrin.  Tubing.  1564.  4to.  —  Bull:  Defens.  Fid.  Nicoente.  Oxon.  1688. 
4to.  —  Calixtus:  F.  U.  Ref.  ad  Calov.  Theses.  (De  Christo.  67.)  Helmst.  1668. 
4to.  —  Calovius:  Harmonia  Calixt.  Haeret.  (De  Christo.  938.)  Witteb.  1655.  4to.; 
Colleg.  Disput.  Controv.  (De  Christo.  62.)  Witteb.  1667.  4to.  —  Chemnitz  :  De 
duab.  nat  in  Christo.  Jena.  1570.  8vo.  — Dorner  :  Entw.  gesch.  d.  L.  v.  Person 
Christi.  1845-56.  8vo.  — Gess:  Die  L.  v.  d.  Person  Christi.  1856.  8vo.  —  Hun- 
Nius  Aeq.:  De  Persona  Christi.  Frankf.  1597.  12mo. — Liebner:  Christol.  1849.— 
LcEscHER  C:  Cons.  Orthod.  de  Christo.  Wittenb.  1699.  4to.  —  Meisner:  De  Artie. 
Fid.  Fundament,  (p.  339.)  Wittenb.  1675.  4to.  —  Osiander:  Informat.  Theologica. 
Tubing.  1620.  — Sartorius:  D.  L.  v.  Christi  Person  u.  Werk.  1845.  —  Schneck- 
ENBURGER  :  Zur  Kirchl.  Christol.  1848.  —  Strauch  :  Consens.  Repetit.  Vindicat 
(190.)  Witteb.  1668.  —  Tho.mastus  :  Christi  Person  u.  Werk.  1857.  —  Thummius  : 
Majestas  Jesu  Christi.  Tubing.  1621.  4to.;  De  maj.  Chr.  doctr.  Repetit.  Tubing. 
1624.  4to.— Weber:  Doctr.  Bib.  de  nat.  Corp.  Christi.  Halis.  1825.  4to  ;  De  nat- 
nra  Christi.  Halis.  1825.  4to.  —  Wolf:  Eutychianism.  Lutheranor.  Wittenb. 
1680.  4to. 

456 


DIFFERENCE   OF  LUTH.   AND  CALV.  SYSTEMS.   457 

into  apparently  intimate  fellowship  by  Dr.  Scliaff 's' temporary 
engagement  at  Andover.  The  article  of  Dr.  Gerhart  is  a  very 
able  one,  and  we  rejoiced  that  so  full,  and,  in  many  respects, 
80  satisfactory  an  exhibition  of  the  doctrines,  usages,  and  his- 
tory of  the  German  Reformed  Church  had  been  given.  At 
the  time,  however,  we  entered  a  kind,  but  most  decided  pro- 
test in  general,  against  what  Dr.  Gerhart  believed  it  neces- 
sary to  say  in  regard  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  exhibiting 
the  contrast  between  her  doctrines  and  those  of  his  own 
communion. 

It  is  our  desire,  in  the  Dissertation  which  we  now  submit  to 
the  reader,  to  place  in  a  more  permanent  shape  some  facts 
which  were  then  drawn  together,  bearing  upon  the  great  doc- 
trines of  our  Lord's  person  and  presence.  Tliey  are  doctrines 
of  the  profoundest  importance  in  themselves,  and  derive  addi- 
tional interest  from  the  fact  that  on  them,  primarily,  the  great 
division  took  place  between  the  tw^o  Reformatory  movements 
of  the  Sixteenth  Century.  It  is  a  division  which  has  been  fruit- 
ful in  unspeakable  mischiefs,  and  which,  more  than  all  other 
causes,  has  made  the  straggle  against  Rome  prolonged  and 
dubious.  The  responsibility  of  the  division  is  a  serious  one, 
and  rests  upon  those  wdio  were  in  the  wrong  upon  the  great 
questions  themselves. 

''  The  differences  of  Zwingli  and  Luther  in  temperament, 
psychological  organization,  moral  character,  edu-  „  Difference 
cation,  and  political  as  well  as  social  relations,"  do  of  the  Lutheran 

^  •     r>  •!  X  '"^"'^      Calvinistic 

not,  in  our  judgment,  satisiactorily  account,  as  systems,  its 
Dr.  Gerhart  supposes,  for  their  divergence  in  the  ^"""'^• 
Reformation.  The  root  of  the  divergence  lies  in  the  very 
nature  of  Christianity  ;  and  there  can  be  no  satisfactory  solu- 
tion of  the  differences  between  the  Zwinglio-Calvinistic,  and 
the  Lutheran  Reformations,  and  the  Churches  w^hich  w^ere 
established  upon  them,  except  this,  that  the  one  accepted  the 
true,  the  other  a  mistaken  meaning  of  God's  Word,  on  certain 
points.  That  is,  and  will  forever  remain,  the  real  question 
between  them. 

We  have  no  less  serious  objection  to  Dr.  Gerhart's  state- 
ment of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in 


458  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  Lord's  Supper.  He  states  a  number  of  important  respects, 
in  which  he  supposes  the  two  Churches  to  agree  touching 
Christ's  sacramental  presence.  He  then  goes  on  to  say :  "  But 
they  differ  as  to  the  mode."  The  inference  here  might  seem 
to  be  natural  that  the  Churches  agree  as  to  a  fact, 
oi  chrisfsVrrs^  but  uot  as  to  its  philosophy,  but  this  representation 
*•""•  is  inadequate,  for  the  point  of  difference  is  as  to 

the  fact,  and,  indeed,  in  a  very  important  sense,  not  at  all  as 
to  the  mode.  Our  controversy  with  Socinians  is  not  as  to  the 
mode  of  the  Trinity,  for  we  confess  that  we  cannot  explain  how 
the  Trinal  Unity  exists,  but  it  is  as  to  the  fact,  whether  there 
be  a  true  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  not  a  mere  ideal  distinction. 
So  in  regard  to  the  presence  of  Christ,  our  dispute  is  not  as  to 
how  he  is  present,  which,  like  the  whole  doctrine  of  His  person, 
is  an  inscrutable  mystery,  but  as  to  whether  there  be  a  true^ 
not  an  ideal  presence.  It  is  the  essence  of  the  doctrine,  not  its 
form,  which  divides  us  from  the  Reformed.  Let  them  satisfy 
us  that  they  accept  the /ad,  and  we  shall  have  no  quarrel  as  to 
the  philosophy  of  the  mode,  so  far  as  the  question  of  mode 
is  separable  from  that  of  fact.  Let  us  agree  as  to  the  kind  of 
presence,  its  objective  reality  ;  let  us  agree  that  the  true  body 
and  true  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present,  so  that  the  bread  is 
the  communicating  medium  of  the  one,  the  cup  of  the  other, 
and  use  these  terms  in  one  and  the  same  sense,  and  we  can 
well  submit  the  mode  of  the  mystery  to  the  Omniscient,  to 
whom  alone  mode  is  comprehensible. 

The  next  statement  of  Dr.  Gerhart  seems  to  us  entirely  a 
IV.  The  \Ax-  mistaken  one.  He  says :  "  The  Lutheran  Church 
t.aci.es  no  l<.cmi  teachcs  tliat  the  veritable  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ 
pryjnce  of  ^^^^  locally  prcscut,  being  in,  with,  and  under  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine."  On  the  contrary,  the  Lutheran 
Church  denies  that  there  is  a  local  presence  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood,  and  if  such  a  presence  be  meant,  she  would  deny 
that  there  is  any  presence  of  them  "in,  with,  and  under  the 
consecrated  elements."  Between  us  and  the  Reformed  there 
never  has  been,  there  never  can  be,  a  controversy  on  so  simple 
a  point  as  this.  The  Lutheran  Church  maintains  that  there 
is  a  true  presence  of  Christ's  human  nature,  which  is  neither 


LOCAL  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST.  459 

local  nor  determinate.  The  body  of  Christ  which,  in  its  own 
nature,  is  determinately  in  heaven,  and  is  thus  present  nowhere 
else,  nor  will  be  thus  present  on  earth  till  His  second  coming, 
has  also  another  presence,  diverse  from  the  determinate,  yet  no 
less  true.  It  is  present  through  that  Divine  nature  into  whose 
personality  it  has  been  received,  and  with  which  it  has  formed 
an  inseparable  union,  whose  lowest  demand  is  the  co-presence 
of  the  two  parts.  If  there  be  a  place  where  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  not  united  with  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity, 
then  there  is  a  place  where  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  is 
not  incarnate.  If  this  be  granted,  then  the  whole  second  per- 
son of  'the  Trinity  is  unincarnate,  for  where  God  is,  He  is  not 
in  part  (for  He  is  indivisible),  but  He  is  entire.  Then  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity  is  either  not  incarnate  at  all,  or 
He  is  both  incarnate  and  unincarnate  ;  or  there  are  two  second 
persons  of  the  Trinity,  with  one  of  whom  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  one  person,  the  extent  of  the  incarnation  being 
commensurate  with  that  of  our  Saviour's  body  in  heaven,  and 
the  other  second  person  of  the  Trinity  omnipresent,  but  not 
incarnate,  all  of  which  suppositions  are  absurd,  and  yet  one  or 
other  of  them  must  be  accepted,  if  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
be  denied.  The  truth  is,  that  when  we  admit  the  personal 
union  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  with  a  divine  nature,  we 
have  already  admitted  the  fact,  in  which  the  mystery  of 
Christ's  Sacramental  presence  is  absorbed.  The  w^iole  Divine 
person  of  Christ  is  confessedly  present  at  the  Supper,  but  the 
human  nature  has  been  taken  into  that  personality,  and  forms 
one  person  with  it ;  hence  the  one  person  of  Christ,  consisting 
of  the  two  natures,  is  present,  and  of  necessity  the  two  natures 
which  constitute  it  are  present. 

As  the  divine  nature,  without  extension,  expansion,  or 
locality,  has  a  presence  which  is  no  less  true  than  the  local 
presence,  from  which  it  is  wholly  diverse,  so  does  it  render 
present  the  human,  which  is  now  in  one  personality  with  it, — 
renders  it  present  without  extension,  expansion,  or  locality ; 
for,  as  is  the  presence  which  the  divine  has,  so  must  be  the 
presence  of  the  human  which  it  makes.  If  we  are  asked  what 
is  the  kind  of  the  presence  of  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  we 


460  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

reply,  it  is  a  true,  il local  presence,  after  the  manner  of  an 
infinite  Spirit,  incomprehensible  to  us ;  and  if  we  are  asked, 
what  is  the  kind  of  the  presence  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  we  reply,  it  is  a  true  il  local  presence  after  the  manner 
in  which  an  infinite  Spirit  renders  present  a  human  nature 
which  is  one  person  with  it  —  a  manner  incomprehensible  to 
us.  ISTor  is  the  idea  at  all  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
exercises  through  anything  inherent  in  it  this  omnipresence, 
for  it  remains,  in  itself,  forever  a  true  human  nature,  and  is 
omnipresent  only  through  the  divine.  The  physical  eye  sees 
through  the  essential  power  of  the  soul,  and  the  soul  sees  by 
the  eye  as  its  organ.  So  are  the  powers  of  the  human  Christ 
conditioned  by  the  essential  attributes  of  the  Godhead,  and  the 
Godhead  works  through  the  ^lanhood  of  Christ  as  its  organ. 
The  ej-e  never  becomes  spirit,  and  the  soul  never  becomes  mat- 
ter. So  in  Christ  the  divine  forever  is  divine,  the  human  forever 
human,  without  absorption  or  confusion,  though  the  human 
acts  through  the  divine,  and  the  divine  acts  by  the  human. 

The  Lutheran  Church  does  not  hold  to  any  local  presence 
of  the  body  of  Christ  m.,  or  any  local  conjunction  of  the  body 
of  Christ  with^  or  any  local  administration  of  the  body  of  Christ 
under  the  bread,  or  of  His  blood  in,  with,  and  under  the  wine. 
The  sphere  of  the  reality  of  the  sacramental  mystery  is  not  of 
this  world.  The  sphere  in  which  our  Lord  sacramentally 
applies  His  redeeming  work  is  that  in  which  He  made  it. 
That  sphere  was  indeed  on  this  earth,  but  not  of  it.  Our  Lord 
made  His  propitiatory  sacrifice ;  it  was  a  true  and  real  sacri- 
fice, but  its  truth  and  reality  are  not  of  the  nature  of  this 
earth,  nor  comprehensible  by  any  of  its  modes  of  apprehension. 
Judged  by  the  world's  standards,  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  of 
God  has  no  more  eflicacy  than  the  blood  of  animal  sacrifices. 
But  there  is  a  sphere  of  reality  in  wliich  the  shedding  of 
Christ's  blood  was  an  actual  ransom  for  the  sins  of  the  race. 
The  atonement  is  of  the  invisible  world,  and  hence  incompre- 
hensible to  us,  who  are  of  the  visible.  In  the  same  order  of 
verities  is  the  sacramental  presence  which  applies  what  the 
atonenient  provided.  It  is  a  most  true  presence,  but  not  in 
the  sphere  of  this  life.     If  presence  means  location ;  if  sacra- 


IS  SACRAMENTAL    COMMUNIONORAL?  461 

mental  is  a  convertible  term  with  fleshly,  earthly,  natural,  (as 
the  opposite  of  spiritual,)  then  the  Lutheran  Church  would 
deny  that  there  is  a  sacramental  presence  of  Christ.  But  a 
presence  of  the  whole  person  of  Christ,  of  the  divine  bj'  its 
inherent  omnipresence,  and  of  the  human  through  the  divine 
—  a  presence,  not  ideal  or  feigned,  but  most  true;  not  fleshly, 
but  spiritual ;  not  after  the  manner  of  this  earth,  but  of  the 
unseen  world;  not  natural,  but  supernatural  —  this  presence 
the  Lutheran  Church  maintains,  and,  God  helping  her,  will 
maintain  to  the  end  of  time. 

Dr.  Gerhart  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Lutheran  Church  holds 
that  '-'•  communicants,  unbelievers  as  well  as  believ-  ^,  , 
ers,  partake  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  with  meutui  comnm- 
the  mouth  ;  the  one  class  of  persons  eating  and 
drinking  damnation  to  themselves,  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
body,  and  the  other  class  eating  and  drinking  unto  sanctifi- 
cation  and  everlasting  life."  We  have  looked  a  little  into 
Lutheran  theology,  and  must  confess  that  the  expression, 
"  partaking  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  with  the  mouth,"  is 
one  which  we  never  met,  and  which  is  to  us  incomprehensible, 
^o  such  phrase  occurs  in  the  citations  made  from  our  Confes- 
sions by  Dr.  Gerhart,  and  no  such  phrase,  we  think,  can  be 
found  in  them.  If  there  be  such  a  phrase  in  any  of  our 
approved  theologians,  we  should  have  been  glad  to  have  Dr. 
Gerhart  quote  it.  But  w^aiving  this,  does  the  Lutheran 
Church,  as  a  whole,  present  in  her  Confession  the  words  "  with 
the  mouth,"  as  an  essential  part  of  the  definition  of  the  sacra- 
mental reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ?  We  reply, 
She  does  not.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  the  only  distinctive 
symbol  universally  recognized  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  has 
no  such  expression,  although  it  was  in  part  prepared  to  show 
that  our  Church  was  free  from  the  Zwinglian  error  on  this 
very  question  of  the  sacramental  presence.  The  Apology, 
which  amplifies  and  defends  the  disputed  statements  of  the 
Confession,  has  not  these  words.  The  Smaller  Catechism  has 
no  such  words.  The  Laro;er  Catechism  has  no  such  words. 
The  Smalcald  Articles  have  no  such  words.  In  Luther's  Four- 
teen Articles  drawn  up  at  the  Colloquy  at  Marburg,  for  the 


462  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

express  and  sole  purpose  of  comparing  the  conflicting  views  of 
Zwinglians  and  Lutherans,  not  a  word  is  said  of  a  reception 
''by  the  mouth."  The  same  is  true  of  the  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord, drawn  up  with  like  aims.  The  fact  is,  therefore,  that 
the  defining  term  "  by  the  mouth,"  cannot  be  demonstrated 
to  be  an  essential  part  of  the  Lutheran  Confessional  statement. 
Entire  national  bodies  of  Lutherans  have  existed  for  centu- 
ries, and  now  exist,  who  have  no  such  expression  in  their 
Confessions. 

It  is  true  that  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  appeared 
thirty-four  years  after  Luther's  death,  does  use  and  defend  the 
term,  and  that  this  Formula,  not  without  good  reason,  has 
been  generally  received  in  the  Germanic  Churches,  and  either 
formally  or  virtually  by  an  immense  majority  of  all  our 
Churches,  and  that  it  is  confessedly  a  just  and  noble  scientific 
development  of  the  Lutheran  faith.  But  when  the  Formula 
and  our  theologians  speak  of  a  reception  by  the  mouth,  they 
speak,  as  we  may,  of  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in,  with, 
and  under  the  preached  Word,  by  the  ear,  not  meaning  at  all 
that  there  is,  or  can  be,  a  physical  grasping  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
by  the  organ  of  sense,  but  that  the  Word  is  the  medium, 
through  which  His  presence  is  operative,  and  that  the  Word, 
and  by  Divine  appointment,  the  Holy  Spirit,  in,  with,  and 
under  the  Word,  is  received  by  the  soul  through  the  ear. 
Our  Gerhard,  of  whom  the  Professor  of  Franklin  and  Mar- 
shall College  is  almost  a  namesake,  defines  the  words  in  ques- 
tion in  this  way  :  "  The  sacramental  eating  of  the  body  of 
Christ  is  none  other  than  iciih  the  mouth  to  receive  the,  euchar- 
istic  '  bread,  which  is  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ,' 
(I  Cor.  x.  16).  This  sacramental  eating  is  said  to  be  spiritual^ 
because  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  eaten  naturally,  and  because 
the  mode  of  eating,  like  the  presence  itself,  is  neither  natural, 
carnal,  physical,  nor  loi-al^  but  supernatural,  divine,  mystical, 
heavenly,  and  spiritual.  .  .  The  Word  of  God  is  the  food  of 
the  soul,  and  yet  is  received  by  the  bodily  ear."  If,  indeed, 
there  be  such  a  thing  as  a  Sarrament^  a  something  distinct 
from  langva.g(\  as  means  of  grace,  it  must  be  received  in  some 
other  way  than  by  hearing,  or  sight,  or  in  the  mode  in  whicli 


WHO  RECEIVE   CHRIST  SACRAMENT  ALLY?     463 

language  addresses  itself  to  them.  If  Baptism  be  a  sacrament ; 
if  the  water,  by  its  conjunction  with  the  Word,  becomes  also 
bearer  of  the  grace  which  the  Holy  Spirit  in  His  substantial 
presence,  in,  with,  and  under  both  water  and  Word,  confers, 
then  is  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  mediated,  in  some 
sense,  through  the  body  which  is  touched  by  the  water,  as 
well  as  through  the  ear,  which  hears  the  Word.  If,  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  distinctive  element  is  something  to  be 
received  by  the  mouth,  then  the  mouth  acts  some  essential 
part  in  the  reception  of  the  thing  offered  in  the  Supper,  be 
that  thing  what  it  may.  Any  theory  which  rejects  the  idea 
of  oral  reception  in  every  sense,  really  denies  the  whole  sacra- 
mental character  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  If  the  bread  commu- 
nicates the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  bread  is  to  be  received 
orally,  the  result  is  inevitable  that  the  sacramental  eating  is 
with  the  mouth.  ^N'or  is  this  so  isolated  a  marvel.  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  personally  and  substantially  present  in,  with,  and' 
under  the  Word.  When  the  blind,  therefore,  as  they  can  and 
sometimes  do,  read  the  AYord  by  pressing  the  lips,  instead  of 
the  fingers,  to  the  raised  characters,  there  is,  in  some  sense,  an 
oral  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

As  to  the  doctrine  that  believers  and  unbelievers  partake 
sacramentally,  though  believers  alone  partake  sav-  ^.^  ^^j^^  ^^^ 
indv,  it  seems  to  us  that  any  doctrine  which  con-  ceive  Christ  sac- 
cedes  a  responsibility  m  man,  and  an  impartiality 
in  God,  must  suppose  that. the  sacrament  offers  to  all  who 
receive  it  the  same  thing ;  the  difference  in  the  result  being 
made  by  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  the  recipient. 

Dr.  Gerhart,  indeed,  himself  says,  that  the  Reformed  Con- 
fessions deny,  "That  the  ohjedive  efficacij  of  the  sacrament 
depends  on  the  faith,  or  any  frame  of  mind  of  the  communi- 
cant." These  words,  as  we  understand  them,  involve  the  doc- 
trine that  there  is  a  positive  object  in  the  sacrament,  which 
exists  apart  from  the  faith  of  the  communicant.  If  the  Doctor 
uses  the  word  "  efficacy  "  in  its  ordinary  acceptation,  he  must 
either  mean  "  efficacy  "  for  good,  in  which  case  he  goes  beyond 
the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  falls  into  the  opus  operatinn  of 
Home;  or  he  must  mean  "efficacy"  for  evil  or  judgment,  in 


464  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  case  of  the  unhelieving,  in  which  case  he  practically  takes 
ground  with  the  Lutheran  Church  on  this  point.     N'or  does  it 
seem  to  us  that  this  doctrine  of  our  Church  can  he  success- 
fully denied.     When  the  Word  of  God  is  preached,  the  sinner 
who  is  melted  to  penitence,  and  the  sinner  who  hardens  him- 
self against  it,  receive  precisely  the  same  Gospel.     What  the 
ear  receives  in  each  case  is  exactly  the  same.     The  Gospel  is 
not  made  Gospel  by  our  faith,  nor  made  mere  sound  by  our 
unbelief.     Our  unbelief  cannot  make  the  promise  of  God  cease 
to  be  His  promise.     Faith  accepts,  and  unbelief  rejects  what 
is :  the  one  no  more  unmakes  it  than  the  other  makes  it.    The 
responsibility  of  the  hardened  hearer  turns  upon  this  very  thing, 
that  receiving  God's  Word  he  does  not  discern  it,  but  treats 
it  as  if  it  were  man's  word ;  and  so  in  the  Lutheran  view  the 
criminality    of  the  unworthy  communicant   is   preeminently 
this,  that  partaking  of  that  bread,  which  is  the  communion 
'of  Christ's  body,  he  does  not  "  discern  the  body  of  the  Lord." 
If  the  words  "partake  "  or  "  receive  "  are  so  used  as  to  imply 
a  salutary  acceptance  with  tke  heart,  then  our  Church  would 
say  that  believers  alone  partake  in  the  Lord's  Supper.     But 
faith  must  have  an  object,  and  the  object  of  faith  can  always, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  be  an  object  of  unbelief.     Our  Church 
maintains  that  the  object  on  which  the  faith  of  the  worthy 
communicant,  and  the  unbelief  of  the  unworthy  communicant, 
rest,  is  the  same.     Sacramentally  they  receive  the  same  thing, 
which  efficaciousbj  the  believer  alone  receives,  and  the  differ- 
ence at  the  table  of  the  Lord  originates,  not  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  God,  but  in  the  state  of  the  recipient.    Bread  is  bread, 
although  the  diseased  state  of  the  man  who  receives  it  may 
make  it  act  like  a  poison.     The  presence  of  Christ  is  an  abso- 
lute verity,  and  is  no  more  aftected  in  its  reality  by  our  unbe- 
lief, than  a  wedge  of  gold  ceases  to  be  gold  because  it  may  be 
neglected  or  spurned  as  if  it  were  brass.     A  man  may  throw 
away  the  wedge  of  gold,  but  it  is  no  less  gold,  and  has  none  the 
less  truly  been  placed  in  his  hand. 

Dr.  Gerhart  then  goes  on  to  say,  contrasting  the  doctrines 
of  the  two  communions:  "The  Eeformed  Church,  on  the  con- 
trary^  teaches  that   the  divine-human   Saviour  is  present,  not 


DOCTRINES   OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  465 

locally,  nor  carnally,  but  spiritually."  To  this  we  reply  that 
it  is  not  on  the  contrary.  The  Lutheran  Church  repeatedly 
and  unequivocally  has  denied  all  local  or  carnal  presence  of 
Christ's  body,  and  has  affirmed  that,  as  antagonistic  to  any 
such  conceptions.  His  presence  is  "spiritual."  When  the 
word  "spiritual,"  however,  is  used  as  the  opposite  yn.  ti,o  ho- 
of  "  true,"  and  means  that  His  presence  is  one  which  ^°""'''^  •""'  ^^"' 

theian  doctrines 

rests  on  our  intellectual  operation,  or  on  our  faith,  ofti.ei.onrssup- 
and  not  on  the  nature  of  His  own  person,  then  our  ^^'^' 
Church  denies  that  it  is  "  spiritual."  Dr.  Gerhart,  however, 
defines  the  words  differently  from  either  of  these  meanings. 
He  says :  "  ^ot  locally,  nor  carnally,  but  spiritually  ;  that  is, 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Reformed  Church  maintains  that 
Christ's  sacramental  presence  is  mediated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  Lutheran  Church,  on  the  contrary,  maintains  that  it  is 
through  the  divine  nature  in  Christ's  own  person,  and  that 
Christ  is  present,  not  because  the  Holy  Spirit  enables  Him  to 
be  present  to  faith,  though  absent  in  reality,  but  because,  in 
His  own  inseparable  person,  the  Godhead  is  of  itself  present, 
and  the  humanity  is  rendered  present  through  the  Godhead. 
The  Trinity  is  indeed  indivisible,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  pres- 
ent at  the  Supper.  But  the  persons  of  t?ie  Trinity  have  their 
distinctive  work.  H  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  illu- 
mine the  mind  and  kindle  the  heart  to  the  reception  of  the 
great  gift  which  the  glorious  Saviour,  present  in  His  own  per- 
son, offers  to  the  soul.  The  whole  Christ  is  truly  present 
after  the  incomprehensible  manner  of  that  world  of  mystery 
and  of  verity  in  which  He  reigns.  He  applies,  to  faith,  at  His 
table,  the  redemption  which  he  wrought  vl^ow  the  cross. 
Through  His  body  and  blood  He  purchased  our  salvation  — 
truly  and  supernaturally  ;  through  His  body  and  blood  He 
applies  salvation  —  truly  and  supernaturally.  In  Christ's  Sup- 
per, as  in  His  person,  the  human  and  natural  is  the  organ  of 
the  divine  and  supernatural  which  glorifies  it.  As  is  the 
redemption,  so  is  its  sacrament.  The  foundation  of  both  is  the 
same,  and  lies  forever  inapproachable  by  man,  in  the  lowest 
depth  of  the  eternal  mind.  In  the  redemption,  nature  furnished 
the  outward  organ  of  the  divine,  in  the  frail  body  and  the 


466  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

flowing  blood  of  our  crucified  Lord.  Through  this  organ  an 
infinite  ransom  was  accomplished.  In  the  Supper,  the  organ 
of  the  redemption  becomes  the  organ  of  its  application.  With 
an  artlessness  which  heightens  its  grandeur,  this  redemption, 
which  forever  centres  in  Christ's  sacred  and  undivided  person, 
veils  its  supernatural  powers  under  the  simplest  elements  which 
sustain  and  revive  our  natural  life.  But  faith  none  the  less 
clearly  sees  that  the  bread  which  we  break  is  the  communion 
of  Christ's  body,  and  that  the  cup  of  blessing  wdiich  we  bless 
is  the  communion  of  His  blood. 

In  illustratino-  and  defendins;  the  doctrine  of  God's  Word, 
w^e  shall  quote  with  some  fulness  from  Chemnitz  as  illustrative 
of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  as  bearing  on 
His  presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  with  reference  to 
various  misapprehensions  of  it.  We  desire  to  present  the  views 
of  Chemnitz,  the  o-reatest  of  the  doo-matic  theolo2:ians  of  the 
pi.»r..nu.  «n  Sixtecuth  Centurv,  not  because  of  the  weio;ht  which 
the  personal  pies-  ];iig  nauic  bcars,  uor  merely  because  of  the  exquisite 
combination  of  sound  judgment,  erudition,  pro- 
found thought  and  clear  reasoning,  with  great  mildness,  and  a 
simple  and  scriptural  piety  which  characterized  him,  but 
mainly  for  two  reasons.  First,  because  he  bore  so  distinguished 
a  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  in  the 
subsequent  masterlj-  defence  of  it ;  and  secondly,  because  he  was 
of  the  school  which,  in  order  to  narrow  the  ground  of  contro- 
versy, had  preferred  waivwg  the  question  of  a  general  omnipres- 
ence of  Christ  in  His  human  nature,  and  confining  attention 
mainly  to  that  presence  in  which  His  people  are  most  directly 
interested.  His  presence  with  His  Church  —  everywhere  and  at 
all  times,  and  especially  at  His  Sup23er. 

"  The  words  in  the  Historj-  of   the  Ascension  are  rightly 

I.  On  fi.o  Av  taken  in  their  simple,  literal.,  and  natural  significa- 

cension  and  Re-  |Jqj-j  .  f^^j.  ^y]^(3|^  Clirist  asccudcd,  accordiuo;  to  the 

turn    of    Clirist.  '^        ^   '  ^  '  ^       ^    ^ 

1.  The  Ascension  dcscrlptiou  of  tlic  EvangcHsts,  He  was,  by  a  visible 
strictly  i.it.Nai.  j^q|^qj-j^  Hftcd  up  ou  high,  in  a  circumscribed  form 
and  location  of  the  body,  so  that,  by  a  visible  interval,  He 
departed  further  and  further  from  the  presence  of  the  Apos- 


CHRIST'S  ASCENSION.  467 

ties.  For  such  is  tlie  force  of  the  words  'to  go  up,'  'to  he 
taken  up,'  '  to  he  parted  from  them,'  '  to  he  received  up,'  which 
are  employed  in  describing  His  ascension." 

"  That  visible,  manifest,  bodily,  or  sensible  intercourse  or 
sojourning,  therefore,  which,  in  a  circumscribed  -'.  Ti.e  Asctn- 
and  visible  form  lie  had  hitherto  had  with  His  Te'spect mnmrng 
disciples  on  earth,  He  has  by  His  ascension  with-  cinist  from  us. 
drawn  from  us  loho  are  on  earthy  so  that  in  that  form,  and  in 
that  mode  of  presence^  He  does  not  noio  have  intercourse  with  us  in 
the  world."  "  But  (in  the  form  and  mode  of  presence  just  de- 
scribed) thus  lie  appears  in  heaven  to  the  angels  and  saints  " 
(Rev.  xiv.  1).  "  In  that  form  also  in  which  the  Apostles  saw 
Ilim  ascend.  He  shall  descend  from  heaven,  m  glory,  to  the  judg- 
ment (Acts  i.  2 ;  iv.  16),  in  a  visible  and  circumscribed  form." 

"  So  far,  (that  is,  on  all  the  points  above  specified,)  as  I  con- 
ceive, WE  (Beza  and  Chemnitz)  agree,  hut  the  point  3.  p^i„t,  „f 
to'be  decided  is  this:   Whether  from  what  is  true  Agreement  and 

.  of  Disagreement 

m  a  certain  respect  [secundum  quid),  an  inlerence  with  the  Re- 
mav  be   drawn   which    involves    every    respect —  formed,  state  of 

•^  ^       ^  ^  ^  the   question    as 

whether  from  the  admission  of  a  fact  in  one  and  a  regards  the  reia- 
certain  sense,  an  inference  may  he  drawn  as  to  the  *^J"g„g|o„^lo 'ms 
same  fact  in  another  and  a  dijferent  sense  —  whether  personal pres- 
hecause  Christ,  in  a  visible  form,  and  a  mode  of  pres- 
ence perceptible  by  human  senses,  does  not  in  His  body,  locally,  have 
intercourse  with  His  Church  on  earth,  we  are,  therefore,  to 
infer  that  in  no  mode  is  He  present  with  His  Church  on  earth 
accordino;  to  the  human  nature  He  has  assumed  —  whether 
Christ  neither  knows,  nor  can  have  any  other  than  that  local, 
visible,  and  sensible  mode  by  which  He  can  perform  what  the- 
words  of  His  testament  declare."  These  words  show  clearly 
why  the  famous  expression  of  Beza,  "  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  as  remote  from  the  Supper  as  the  highest  heaven  is  from 
earth,"  gave  such  offence.  It  was  not  that  our  theologians 
denied  it,  in  a  certain  respect  {secundum  quid),  but  that  Beza 
denied  it  absolutely  in  every  respect  {si'mpliciter).  Hence  the 
Formula  Concordise  (672),  commenting  on  this  language,  ex- 
presses the  offensive  point  of  it  thus :  "  That  Christ  is,  in  such 
manner  {ita,  als)  received  in  heaven,  as  to  b^  circumscribed  and 


468  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

shut  up  in  it,  so  that  in  no  mode  whatever  {nullo jprorsus  modo  — • 
keineiiei  Weise)  He  can  or  will  be  present  with  us  on  earth  in 
His  human  nature." 

"  I  cannot  see  the  connection  between  the  premises  and  the 
,.      conclusion,  when,  thouo;h  Christ  says  He  will  be 

4.  The  soimism  '  '  S  J 

involved  in  ti.e  prescut  iu  the  use  of  His  Supper,  it  is  argued,  that 
Pergonal    PrJ  bccausc  this  cauuot  bc  in  any  way  of  this  world, 

ence.  because  of  ffg^,  jf^^  ^]^lg  D^ocle  CIlHst  kaS  left  thc  WOrld,  AND  IS  NO 
Hi«  ascension.  ^  i  p'  tt      •  i 

LONGER  IN  THE  WORLD)  tliereiore  He  is  present  there 
IN  NO  OTHER  MODE,  thougli  the  Avords  declare  He  is."  "A  com- 
parison of  the  parts  in  John  xvi.  will  show  in  what  sense 
Christ  has  left  the  world,  for  He  says  (18):  'I  came  forth 
from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world,'  not  that  He  had 
left  the  Father,  for  He  says  (ch.  viii.  29) :  '  He  that  sent  me  is 
with  me :  the  Father  hath  not  left  me  alone,'  or  as  if  the  Father, 
who  fills  heaven  and  earth,  were  not  in  this  world,  but  because 
He  had  humbled  Himself,  though  He  was  in  the  form  of  God. 
From  the  antithesis^  therefore,  we  may  rightfully  gather  what 
Christ  means  when  he  says :  '  Again  I  leave  the  world  and  go 
to  the  Father,'  to  wit,  that  after  His  work  was  finished.  His 
humiliation  removed,  all  infirmity  and  sorrow  laid  aside,  He 
would  be  exalted  to  the  highest  glory  and  power  of  the  Father, 
and  would  be  transferred  from  the  mode  of  this  world's  life  to 
a  heavenly  mode  of  existence  with  the  Father.  This  explana- 
tion John  himself  gives  (ch.  xiii.  1-3),  for  when  he  tells  us : 
'  Jesus  knew  that  His  hour  was  come  that  He  should  depart 
out  of  this  world  unto  the  Father,'  he  subjoins  this  explana- 
tion :  '  Knowing  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  His 
hands,  and  that  He  was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God.' 
.Nay,  Christ  Himself  gives  us  the  explanation  of  these  declara- 
tions of  His.  For  when  by  His  Resurrection  He  had  passed 
into  another  mode  of  existence,  though  He  offered  Himself 
then  present  to  be  seen  and  touched  by  the  Apostles,  yet  He 
says  (Luke  xxiv.  44), '  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto 
you,  WHILE  I  WAS  YET  AviTH  YOU.'  Hc  shows,  therefore,  that 
the  sayings  were  already  fulfilled,  ('Yet  a  little  while  I  am 
vvith  3'ou,''  '- 1  am  no  more  in  the  world,'  '  I  leave  the  world,') 
and  that  they  at'e  to*be  understood,  not  of  an  absence  in  every 


THE  PRESENCE   OF  CHRIST.  4G9 

SENSE  {pmni  modo),  but  of  another  mode  of  life,  of  intercourse, 
and  of  presence." 

"Though,  therefore,  this  presence  be  not  in  any  way  of  this 
world,  which  we  can  understand  or  comprehend,     5  General  con- 
yet   He   can   fulfil   (the   sacramental   promise)   in  elusion. 
ANOTHER  MODE,  though  it  be  incomprehensible  to  us.    'Christ 

.  is  united  and  conjoined  with  us  who  are  yet  on  earth, 
not  indeed  in  any  gross  mode  of  this  life,  a  mode  which  would 
make  Him  an  olject  of  touch  {cttting entice)^  but  in  a  supernatural 
AND  HEAVENLY  MODE,  YET  TRULY.'  '  The  Article  of  the  Ascen- 
sion, therefore,  not  only  does  not  overthrow  the  simple  and 
genuine  sense  of  the  institution  (of  the  Lord's  Supper),  but,  on 
the  contrary,  rightly  explained,  confirms  the  verity  of  it.'  " 

''  We  believe  and  confess  that  the  Son  of  God  assumed  the 
true  and  entire  substance  of  a  human  nature,  with  n.  The  Body 
those  essential  properties  which  naturally  accom-  ^fchnst. 
pany  and  follow  the  substance  of  human  nature.  .  .  That  sub- 
stance, with  its  essential  properties,  He  retained  also  after  His 
Resurrection,  though  its  infirmities  were  laid  aside,  which  also, 
though  He  is  in  glory,  we  believe  He  retains  true  and  entire. 
And  according  to  those  natural  or  essential  properties,  and  on 
account  of  the  natural  mode  of  a  true  body,  we  have  such  say- 
ings in  Scripture  as  these :  '  I  w^as  not  there,'  '  He  is  not 
here,  but  is  risen.'  According  also  to  those  properties,  and 
agreeably  to  the  mode  of  a  true  body,  Luther,  with  Augustine 
and  the  Scholastics,  believes  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  now  in 
glory,  in  that  circumscribed  form  in  which  He  showed  Him- 
self to  Paul  and  Stephen,  in  w^hich  also  He  shall  return  to 
judgment,  and  in  which  He  is  seen  in  heaven  by  angels  and 
saints." 

"  When  Christ  says :  '  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  ni.  The  Pres- 
them  '  we  ri2:htlv  understand  the  promise  of  the  «'"^'"  °*"  ^*'''''*- 

T  ^         ^  -^  .  1.    The    promise 

w^HOLE  Christ,  or  of  His. entire  -person^  lor  He  says  of  chrisfs  pres- 
that  He,  in  whose  name  we  are  gathered,  is  present.   ^"'^®- 
But  no  one  will  dare  to  say  that  the  name  of  Christ  is  His 
divine  nature  alone.     It  is  His  whole  person,  in  each  nature, 
and  according  to  each  nature,  and,  indeed,  in  His   ofiice  of 


470  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Mediator  and  Saviour,  for  it  is  admitted  that  when  the  Scrip- 
ture  says  a  thing  is  done  in  the  name  of  Chi'ist,  it  denotes 
that  this  pertains  to  the  person  according  to  each  nature." 
"  In  regard  to  that  presence  of  the  whole  Christ  in  the 
Church,  there  are  special  promises  in  the  Word  of  God.  For 
(Matt,  xxviii.)  when  Jesus, after  His  Resurrection,  had  appeared 
upon  a  mountain  in  Galilee  to  more  than  five  hundred  of  Ilis 
disciples  at  once,  when  He  was  before  them,  not  in  His  divinity 
alone,,  hut  whole  and  entire,  in  both  natures,  so  that  by  that 
very  presence  on  that  mountain  He  gave  the  demonstration 
and  the  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  He  had  risen  in  His  true 
body,  so  that  His  disciples,  when  they  saw  Him,  worshipped 
him,  and  when  some  doubted,  as  if  there  w^ere  a  spirit,  or  a 
spectre  appearing  in  an  outward  and  visible  form,  Jesus 
approached  and  spake  to  them  —  all  which,  beyond  contro- 
versy, pertains  to  the  human  nature  which  Christ  assumed. 
And  when  He  gave  the  command  to  His  disciples  to  gather  a 
Church  throughout  the  whole  world.  He  added  the  promise, 
'  Lo !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.' 
That  promise,  therefore,  is  rightly  understood  of  the  whole 
Christ,  God  and  man,  according  to  both  natures  ;  for  He  who 
was  then  and  there  before  them,  promised  His  presence  ivith  His 
Church  through  all  time  —  but  He  was  then  present,  not  in  His 
Divinity  alone,  but  showing  that  even  after  His  Resurrection, 
in  glory,  he  had  and  retained  the  verity  of  His  human  nature. 
And  He  who  was  then  entire  in  each  nature,  by  a  sure  word 
and  peculiar  promise,  says  :  ^I  am  present  with  you '  (wherever, 
to  wit,  my  Church  shall  be,  throughout  the  whole  world). 
And  there  is  no  reason  whatever,  in  that  most  sweet  promise 
of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  His  Church,  why  we  should  sepa- 
rate and  exclude  that  nature  which  was  assumed  by  Him  in 
which  He  is  our  kinsman  and  brother,  and  by  which  we  '  are 
members  of  His  body,  of  His  flesh,  and  of  His  bones,'  (Eph.  v. 
30,)  since  He,  in  giving  the  promise,  marks  and  describes,  by 
many  circumstances,  the  nature  he  assumed,  as  w^e  have 
shown  from  the  text." 

With  similar  conclusiveness  does  Chemnitz  reason  in  regard 
to  other  passages,  as,  for  instance,  Mark  xvi.  19,  20.         "  '-  The 


CHRIST'S  PRESENCE.  471 

Lord  .  .  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  they  went  forth 
and  preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them  and 
confirming  the  word  with  signs  following.'     They  preached 
everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them :  therefore  the  Lord 
Jesus  worked  with  them  everywhere.''     So,  also,  in  regard  to 
the  words :  "  The  Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven  ' '  (John  iii.  13). 
"  That  Christ,  according  to  His  divine  nature,  is  present  with 
His  Church,  and  with  all  other  creatures,  is  not     ,^,,^p^j^^^f 
questioned.    The  divine  essence  is  infinite,  imraeas-  Agreement  as  to 
urahle,  illimitahle,  uncompounded :   the  operation  ^^cT^'ZlZt 
of  God  proceeds  from  His  power.  .  .  Wherefore  Divine omnipres- 
it  is  usual  and  right  to  say  that  God  is  everywhere, 
or  in  all  things  essentially,  or  by  essence,  presence,  and  power, 
without  mingling,  circumscription,  distraction,  or   mutation 
of  Himself.     Because  the  divine  nature  is  incapable  of  parti- 
tion, not  having  part  separate  from  part,  it  is  total  totally, 
w^herever  it  exists  ;  nor  is  there  part  in  part,  but  it  is  total  in 
all,  total  in  each,  and  total  above  all,  as  Damascenus  says.    And 
the  old  writers  say  :  The  divine  essence  is  within  all,  yet  is  not 
included  —  it  is  out  of  all,  yet  not  excluded."     Luther,  in  a 
passage  so  closely  parallel  with  the  one  we  have  just  quoted 
from  Chemnitz,  that  we  cannot  forbear  placing  the  two  side  by 
side,  says :  "  God  is  not  a  Being  with  extension,  of  whom  we 
can  say,  He  is  so  high,  so  broad,  so  thick ;  but  He  is  a  super- 
natural, unsearchable  Being,  who  is  total  and  entire  in  every 
granule,  and  yet  in,  and  over,  and  apart  from  all  creatures.  .  . 
Xothing  is  so  small  that  God  is  not  smaller,  nothing  so  great 
that  God  is  not  greater.    .    .    He  is,  in  a  word,  an  ineffable 
Being,  over  and  apart  from  all  that  we  can  speak  or  think." 

"  Since,  however,  in   the   person   of  Christ,  there  subsists 
not   only  the  divine,  but  the  human  nature,  the     3.  The  mooted 

,  ,  .,        question     a«     to 

question    at   present    concerns    the   latter,  to    wit,  Christ's  pres- 
where  and  how  the  person  of  Christ,  according  to   ""'^e- 
both  natures,  or  in  His  assumed  human  nature,  is  present  —  or 
wills,  and  is  able  to  be  present  ?  " 

After  dwelling  on  Christ's  presence  at  the  Supper,  Chemnitz 
says : 

"  But  not  alone  in  that  place  —  not  at  that  time  alone  when 


472  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

the  Supper  of  the  Lord  is  observed  in  the  public  assembly  of  the 
Church,  is  the  whole  Christ,  in  both  His  natures,  present  with 
the  Church  militant  on  earth,  as  if  when  that  celebration  was 
over  He  withdrew  His  presence,  and  the  members  of  His 
Church,  apart  from  that  public  assembly,  were,  while  in  their 
vocations,  their  trials,  and  temptations,  deprived  of  that  most 
sweet  presence  of  Christ,  their  High  Priest  and  King,  their  Head 
and  their  Brother.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  in  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  a  public,  solemn,  and  peculiar  attestation 
and  sealing  of  the  truth,  that  Christ,  our  Mediator  and  Saviour, 
wishes  mercifully  to  be  present  with  His  Church,  which  is  war- 
ring in  the  world,  to  be  present,  not  ivith  the  half^  or  with  one 
'part  of  Himself  only^  to  idt,  His  divinity/  alone,  but  whole  and 
ENTIRE,  that  is,  in  that  nature  also  which  He  has  assumed, 
IN  which  He  is  of  like  nature  with  us,  our  Kinsman  and  our 
Brother  —  that  nature  in  which  He  was  tempted,  so  that  He 
might  have  compassion  on  us  in  our  griefs  —  that  nature  in 
which,  by  His  sufferings  and  death.  He  finished  the  work  of 
our  redemption,  so  that  thus  we  inay  be  rendered  members  of 
His  body,  of  His  flesh,  and  of  His  bones  (Eph.  v.  30).  And 
because  our  reason  cannot  grasp  or  comprehend  this,  St.  Paul 
adds:  '  This  is  a  great  mystery:  but  I  speak  concerning  Christ 
and  the  Church.'  " 

"  The  humanity  which    Christ   assumed  was  not,  by  that 
IV  Modi^-.  of  ^^^^<^^i^  ^^'itl^  I^eity,  converted  or  transmuted  into  an 
Presence.  1.  Tiie  infinite  or  immcuse  essence,  but  has  and  retains  in 
itt  ""i.vvn  nrtVre  ^^^^^  vcry  uulou,  aud  after  it,  the  verity  of  a  human 
I'^'-'i-  nature,  and  its  physical  or  essential  properties,  l)y 

which  a  true  human  body  consists  in  a  certain,  finite,  and  cir- 
cumscril)ed  symmetry  (dimension)  of  members,  and  which, 
consisting  in  a  local  or  finite  situation  and  position  of  mem- 
bers, has  one  part  distinct  from  another  in  a  certain  order. 
The  body  of  Christ,  therefore,  with  the  property  of  its  own 
nature,  is  essentially  or  naturally  finite,  that  is,  according  to 
its  natural  properties,  which  it  has  and  retains  even  in  that 
union,  it  locally  and  circumscriptively  occupies  a  certain 

PLACE."* 

*De  duab.  Nat.  174. 


MODES  OF  PRESENCE  REJECTED.  473 

"  That  mode  of  visible  converse,  and  that  circumscribed  and 
local  form  of  the  presence  of  His  body,  according  to  the  con- 
dition and  mode  of  this  earthly  life,  according  to  the  flesh, 
He  has  by  His  ascension  taken  from  us  who  are  on  earth. 
And  this  is  what  He  means  when  He  says  :  'Again  ^  Ami  us  to  its 
I  leave  the  world, —  me  ye  have  not  always.'  These  locality    is   no 

-,  ,  n  1  longer  on  earth. 

words,  therefore,  speak  of  a  mode  of  phesence,  ac- 
cording to  tlie  respect  and  condition  of  this  Avorld,  a  mode 
visiBi^E,   sensible,   LOCAL,   AND   CIRCUMSCRIBED,   according   to 
which  mode  of  presence  Christ  is  now  no  longer  ordinarily 

PRESENT  WITH  IIlS  ChURCH  ON  EARTH."  ^ 

"  Since  the  body  of  Christ,  neither  in  the  (personal)  union, 
NOR  IN  GLORY,  is   transmuted  into    an  infinite   or 

p  n  1     •  1  p  /  3.  Is  not  pres- 

immense  substance,  therefore  through  itself  (per  5e),  ent  through  the 
and  of  itself  (ex  se),  even  in  glory,  it  is  finite  in  p'^p^''^''^^  f  * 

^  ,  glorified      body, 

the  property  of  its  nature,  and  by  the  mode  of  um  in  ti.at  mode 
glorified  bodies  is  somewhere  (alicubi),  the  pre-  '« '"  ^^<^'^''^"- 
rogative  of  the  personal  union,  as  I  have  said,  being  excepted. 
And  in  this  visible  form  or  condition  of  glorified  bodies,  Christ, 
in  His  body,  is  not  present  to  us  in  this  life,  in  the  Church 
militant  on  earth,  but  is  in  the  heavens,  whence  He  shall 
return  to  judgment,  in  that  form  in  which  He  now  offers 
Himself  to  be  seen  by  the  souls  of  the  blessed,  and  by  angels. "f 

"According  to  the  natural  properties  of  a  true  body,  or  by 
any  essential  attribute,  the  body  of  Christ  (which  4. M.desof tres- 
is by  the  property  of  its  nature  finite)  is  not  pres-  '-nee  rejected. 
ENT  in  all  places  where  the  Supper  is  administered,  either  by 
local  circumscription,  or  by  any  visible,  sensible,  or  natural 
mode,  respect,  or  condition  of  this  world.  This  mode  has  been 
taken  from  the  world." 

"  Xor  is  the  presence  such  as  that  of  glorified  bodies  :  in  tliat 
form  He  will  not  appear  till  the  final  judgment." 

"  We  by  no  means  teach  that  the  body  of  Christ,  as  a  bound- 
less  mass,  is   expanded,  distributed,  diftused,  drawn  out,  or 

*  De  duab.  Nat.  175.  The  limitation  which  Chemnitz  designs  to  make  by  the 
«'ord  "  ordinarily,"  has  reference  to  such  cases  as  the  appearing  of  Christ  to  Saul 
on  the  way  to  Damascus,  to  Stephen,  etc.,  as  he  shows  at  large.     Do.  176,  177. 

fDo.  176.  Cf.  177. 


474  CONSERVATIVE  'REFORMATION. 

extended  through  all  places  (or  as  Damascenus  expresses  it, 
that  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  corporeally  co-extended  with  the 
Deity  assuming  it,)  so  that  in  this  way  it  is  pre;?ent." 

''kor  hy  multiplication,  or  replication  —  as  the  image  of 
one  body  in  many  pieces  of  a  broken  mirror.  The  body  of 
Christ  is  one,  not  many." 

''By  no  means,  also,  do  we  think  that  the  body  of  Christ, 
either  in  (the  personal)  union,  or  in  glory,  its  substance  being 
lost,  and  its  essential  properties  abolished,  is  converted  or 
transmuted  into  a  spiritual  substance,  infinite,  immense,  and 
now  in  its  essential  property  uncircamscribed,  so  that  by  reason 
of  its  essential,  infinite  immensity,  it  is  in  all  places,  and  fills 
all  things,  as  divinity  in  this  mode,  and  in  this  respect  is  pres- 
ent everywhere ;  for  the  substance  of  the  natures  and  their 
essential  properties  remain  in  Christ  unaflected,  in  that  very 
union  and  glory." 

"  For  that  the  divine  nature  alone,  and  not  the  human  also 
is  present." 

"  :N'or  that  it  agrees  with  the  words  of  the  institution,  that 
we  should  understand  the  presence  of  the  merit,  virtue,  and 
efiicacy  merely  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  substance  of  it  being 
excluded  and  separated."''* 

"  Christ,  according  to  Ilis  human  nature,  wills  to  be  present 
in  His  Church,  where  Ilis  Supper  is  celebrated  on 
presence   af-  earth,  aud  througli  the  humanity  He  has  assumed, 
^''"''■''-  as  by  an  organ  connate  with  us,  as  the  ancients 

express  it,  wishes  to  apply,  confirm,  and  seal  to  us  His  benefits, 
and  thus  to  execute  in  the  Church  His  ofiice  of  life-giving, 
according  to  both  natures,  through  His  life-giving  flesh."t 

The  premise  which  is  conceded  is  that  ''  in  a  physical  respect, 
in  a  natural  mode  and  condition  of  this  world,  one 

6.  Theiireinisi'  ^  ' 

which  is  cn„-  body,  according  to  its  essential  or  natural  proper- 
'rrJ.t.rthich  ties,  is  not  at  the  same  time  in  difi"erent  places,  nor 
isdeniwi.  ^g  there  an  essential  or  natural  property  in  the  body 

of  Christ  of  being  in  difi'erent  places,  nor  is  it  l:)y  any  essential 
or  natural  attribute  of  Christ's  body  that  it  is  present  at  the 
same  time  in  all  those  places  where  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  is 

*De  duab.  iiatur.  173.  t  1^^-  1^^- 


THE  LUTHERAN   VIEW  NOT  EUTYCHIAN.       475 

celebrated,  as  in  divinity  it  is  the  essential  attribute  of  infinite 
immensity  to  be  everywhere.  All  these  things  we  concede." 
The  inference  which  is  denied  is  this  :  "  But  it  by  no  means 
follows  from  this  that  the  divine  power  of  the  Son  of  God 
cannot  effect  that,  in  another  mode  than  that  which  is  nat- 
ural and  according  to  the  physical  properties  of  a  body,  or 
in  the  sensible  manner  of  this  world,  with  His  body  remain- 
ing safe  in  its  substance,  and  its  essential  properties  abiding 
He  should  be  present  wheresoever  He  wills,  in   a  mode 

WHICH  IS    supernatural,  DIVINE,  OR    HEAVENLY,  INCOMPREHENSI- 
BLE TO  US." 

"  N^or  is  there  a  contradiction  involved  when  the  same  body 
is  said  to  be  in  one  jjlace,  in  the  natural  mode,  according  to 
its  essential  properties,  and  if  it  is  maintained  that  beyond  its 
physical  attributes,  through  the  will  and  power  of  God,  it  is 
present  not  in  one,  but  in  many  places,  in  a  supernatural, 
heavenly,  or  divine  mode  ;  for  there  is  no  contradiction  when 
what  is  contrary  is  attributed  to  the  same  thing  in  different 
respects  and  modes.  And  Justin  rightly  says :  "We  commit 
the  things  of  nature  to  nature,  the  things  of  art  to  art,  and  the 
things  of  God  to  God  ;  but  Him  all  things  obey." 

These  extracts,  as  they  throw  light  upon  the  Sacrament^^ 
questions  discussed  by  Dr.  Gerhart,  may  also  be  useful  in  illus- 
trating yet  more  directly  the  point  next  raised.  After  finish- 
ing his  parallel  between  the  doctrines  of  the  two  Churches  on 
the  Lord's  Supper,  He  takes  up  the  "  Reformed  (and  he  might 
have  added,  the  Lutheran,)  Doctrine  of  the  Person  ^^^^  mi^nitest 
of  Christ."  On  this  great  point,  according  to  Dr.  in  thefiesi,.  Ti.e 
Gerhart,  "  the  Lutheran  view  is  in  the  line  of  the  tdnenf  ti.e  i-er- 
ancient  Eutychian,  and  the  Reformed  in  the  line  sonofchnst. 
of  the  ancient  ^N'estorian  method  of  thought,  though  it  w^ould 
be  unjust  to  charge  either  Confession  with  holding  the  corre- 
sponding ancient  heresy." 

We  shall  not  attempt  to  question  the  Doctor's  position  as  to 
the  N'estorianizing  element  in  the  Reformed  view,      ^^^  L„theran 
but  we    think  that  the    idea    that    the  Lutheran  view  ..ot  Euty. 
view  of  the  person  of  Christ  is  in  the  "  line  of  the  '^'^"• 
ancient  Eutychian,"  proceeds  from  a  wholly  incorrect  judgment 


476  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

of  wliat  the  Lutheran  view  is.  On  the  contrarj^,  the  statements 
of  Lutheran  doctrine,  beyond  every  other,  are  guarded  with 
extraordinary  care  against  the  Eutychian  tendency.  We  main- 
tain, further,  that  no  system  is  more  thoroughly  antagonistic 
to  Eutychianism  than  the  Lutheran  system,  properly  under- 
stood. Even  the  Eeformed  doctrine  itself  has  a  point  of 
apparent  contact  with  it,  wdiich  Lutheranism  has  not.  Euty- 
ches  taught  that  Christ  has  hut  one  nature.  The  Lutheran 
Church  holds  "  that  the  two  natures,  divine  and  human,  are 
inseparably  conjoined  in  unity  of  person,  one  Christ,  true  God 
and  true  man.''^  Eutyches  taught  that  the  body  of  Christ 
was  not  of  the  same  substance  as  ours.  The  Lutheran  Church 
teaches  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  man,  of  the  substance  of  His 
mother,  horn  into  the  world,  perfect  man,  of  a  rational  soul 
and  human  flesh  subsisting.  One  Christ,  not  by  the  conver- 
sion of  divinity  into  flesh,  but  by  tlie  assumption  of  humanity 
to  God ;  one,  indeed,  not  by  confusion  of  substances,  but  by 
unity  of  person,  for  as  the  rational  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man, 
BO  God  and  man  is  one  Christ. "f  The  doctrine  of  Eutyches 
is,  moreover,  expressly  rejected  in  several  passages  of  the 
Formula  Concordise.  But  is  not  the  Reformed  doctrine,  that 
Christ's  personal  presence  at  the  Lord's  Supper  is  only  in  one 
nature,  a  concession  logically  so  far  to  Eutyches,  that  it  seems 
to  admit  that  sometimes,  and  somewhere,  nay,  rather  always, 
almost  everywhere,  Christ  has  hut  one  nature? 

Alike  removed  from  ISTestorianism  and  Eutychianism,  the 
iihi-tration  oi  ^octriuc  of  tliC  Evangclical  Lutheran  Church  may 
the  Liitheia.i  "be  thus  illustratcd  :  The  essential  properties  of 
each  nature  of  our  Lord  are  undisturbed  hy  their 
union  in  Ilim,  but  as  these  two  natures  form  one  inseparable 
person,  the  whole  person  is  involved  in  the  acts  of  each  part 
of  it.  Everything  that  the  Saviour  did  and  suftered  is  both 
divine  and  human,  that  is,  it  is  personal.  He  did,  and  suftered 
all,  and  lie  is  both  human  and  divine.  Every  act,  indeed,  is 
done,  every  suflering  endured,  through  or  hy  the  one  or  the 
other  nature,  but  not  without  the  personal  presence  of  the 
other.      Jesus    Christ   wrought   miracles   through   the   divine 

*  Augsburg  Coufession,  Art.  III.  f  Athanasian  Creed,  29-35. 


ILLUSTRATION  OF  TUB  LUTH.   DOCTRINE.       477 

nature,  but  they  were  wrought  by  the  human  nature.  Through 
Hi^  divine  omnipotence  sight  was  given  to  the  blind,  but  His 
divine  omnipotence  wrouglit  it  by  His  human  touch.  Jesus 
Christ  died  according  to  His  human  nature,  but  His  death 
was  the  death  of  a  divine  person.  Through  His  human  infir- 
mity He  was  crucified,  but  that  human  weakness  wrous^ht 
by  His  divine  majesty  an  infinite  sacrifice.  Godbead  cannot 
bleed,  but  the  Church  is  purchased  by  the  blood  of  God  ;  for  He 
who  bleeds  is  in  one  inseparable  person,  God  as  well  as  man, 
and  His  blood  has  efiicacy,  not  because  of  the  properties  of  the 
nature  according  to  which  He  bleeds,  but  because  of  the  attri- 
butes of  His  whole  person,  which  is  divine.  Had  not  He  who 
bled  been  personally  God  as  well  as  man,  His  blood  would  not 
have  availed.  Jesus  Christ  is  essentially  and  necessarily  omni- 
present according  to  the  divine  nature,  but  His  human  nature 
not  of  its  own  essence,  or  by  a  necessity  resulting  from  its  own 
attributes,  but  because  the  divine  has  taken  it  into  personal 
union  with  itself,  is  rendered  present  through  the  divine.  The 
divine  neither  loses  nor  imparts  any  essential  attribute,  nor 
does  the  human  lose  any  essential  attribute  of  its  own,  nor 
receive  any  essential  attribute  of  the  divine ;  but  the  divine, 
omnipresent  of  itself,  renders  present  the  human  which  has 
been  taken  into  its  own  person.  The  doctrine  on  which  this 
rests  is  known  in  theological  technology  as  the  "  Communicatio 
idiomatum,^'  that  is,  the  common  participation  of  properties,  the 
doctrine  that  the  properties  of  the  divine  and  human  natures 
are  actually  the  properties  of  the  whole  person  of  Christ,  and 
actually  exercised  by  Him  in  the  unity  of  His  person.  We 
Lutherans  afiirm  that  there  is  a  real  common  participation  of 
the  whole  person  in  the  properties  of  both  natures.  ,  The 
Reformed  deny  it,  and  say  that  there  is  no  real  common  partici- 
patioiij  but  that  each  nature  is  isolated  from  the  other  in  its 
attributes,  and  that  the  person  of  Christ  has  only  the  common 
participation  in  the  names  of  the  two  sets  of  attributes,  the 
human  and  divine.  In  other  words,  the  question  which 
divides  us  is  between  a  communicatio  idiomatum,  and  a  commu- 
nicatio nominum,  the  question  whether  the  two  natures  enjoy  a 
common  participation  of  properties  in  the  one  person,  or  merely 


^IS  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

a  common  participation  of  names.  To  Lutherans,  the  view  we 
reject  seems  logically  to  run  out  into  a  denial  of  the  unity  of 
Christ's  person,  and  of  the  reality  of  the  incarnation. 

It  may  tend  to  give  a  clearer  view  of  the  doctrine  to  present 
Four  points  in  four  poiuts  \\\  it,  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand 
the  doctrine.       \^-^  ^|^g  Fomiuk  of  Coucord. 

1.  The  Lutheran  Church  holds  that  from  a  personal  union 
of  the  divine  and  human,  it  follows  that  there  are  not  two 
Christs,  outwardly  conjoined,  one  of  whom  is  God,  and  the 
other  a  man,  but  one  Christ,  who  is  both  God  and  man  in  one 
person. 

2.  These  two  natures  are  not  fused  into  one  substance,  nor 
is  the  one  absorbed  by,  or  transmuted  into  the  other,  but  each 
nature  retains  its  essential  properties,  neither  losing  its  own, 
nor  receiving  those  of  the  other. 

■  3.  Dr.  Gerhart,  in  definino^  the  true  doctrine  as  he  resiards 
it,  says:  "The  Eeformed  predicated  the  essential  attributes 
of  divinit}^  of  the  divine  nature  only."  So  do  we.  Dr.  Ger- 
hart is  entirely  mistaken  in  imagining  that  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church  is  in  conflict  with  this  position.  In  the  very  state- 
ment of  our  doctrine  over  against  its  opposite,  the  Form.ula 
ConcordiBe  says :-  "  The  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  are,  to 
be  omnipotent,  eternal,  infinite,  and  of  itself,  according  to  the 
attribute  of  its  nature  and  of  its  own  natural  essence,  to  be 
present  everywhere,  and  to  be  omniscient.  All  these  attributes 
neither  are,  nor  ever  can  become,  the  attributes  of  the  human 
nature." 

4.  Xor  is  Dr.  Gerhart  more  happy  in  stating  a  point  of  dif- 
ference between  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  and  his  own,  when 
he  says :  "  The  Reformed  predicated  the  essential  attributes  of 
humanity  of  (Christ's)  human  nature  only."  So  do  we.  The 
paragraph  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  next  to  the  one  we  have 
quoted,  says:  "The  properties  of  human  nature  are:  To  be  a 
corporeal  creature,  to  consist  of  flesh  and  blood,  to  be  finite 
and  circamscribod,  to  sufter,  die,  ascend,  descend,  to  move  from 
[tlace  to  place,  to  hunger,  thirst,  grow  cold,  sufter  from  heat, 
and  such  like.  These  never  arc,  nor  can  become  the  attributes 
of  the  divine  nature." 

*Page  GOG. 


SUMMARY  OF  THE    VIEW  OF   OUR    CHURCH.      479 

Our  Confessions  teach  that  the  essential  attributes  of  Christ's 
human  nature  belong  to  it  forever.  He  remains  a  true  man, 
with  every  essential  property  of  the  nature  of  a  true  man. 
The  divine  nature  loses  no  essential  attributes  of  deity,  and 
the  human  nature  receives  none.     To  be  essentially. 

.  .  Summary      of 

or  by  virtue  of  its  own  nature.,  everywhere  present,  ti.e  vi(;w  of  our 
omnipotent,  and  omniscient,  is  something  divine  ;  ^'""■'^^''• 
and  hence  the  Lutheran  Church  holds  that  the  Godhead  alone 
is  essentially,  and  by  virtue  of  its  own  nature,  everj^where  pres- 
ent, all  wise,  and  almighty.  So  also  to  be  essentially,  or  by 
virtue  of  its  ow^n  nature  limited,  in  presence,  in  power,  and  in 
wisdom,  pertains  to  the  human  nature,  and  hence  the  Lutheran 
Church  holds  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  neither  omnipres- 
ent, omniscient,  nor  omnipotent,  essentially  or  by  virtue  of  its 
own  nature.  The  humanity  of  Christ  has  all  the  essential  (by 
no  means,  however,  all  the  accidental)  properties  of  ours,  and 
in  and  of  itself  is  finite.  God  became  man,  but  Godhead  does 
not  become  humanity.  A  man  is  God  —  but  humanity  does 
not  become  Deity.  In  this  aspect  the  Lutheran  Church  draws 
a  distinction,  total  and  all-comprehending,  betw^een  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Godhead  of  Christ  and  the  presence  of  His  human- 
ity. Omnipresence  is  the  essential  attribute  of  the  divine,  and 
hence  His  Godhead  is  necessarily,  in  and  of  itself,  in  virtue  of 
its  owm  nature,  present.  But  the  essential  attribute  of  the 
human  is  to  have  a  determinate  presence,  and  hence  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  has  such  a  determinate  presence,  nor  in  and 
of  itself  w^ould  the  human  nature  have  any  other  presence  ;  but 
as  it  is  in  one  person  with  the  divine,  it  is  in  that  one  person 
rendered  present  with  and  through  the  divine.  In  other  words, 
what  the  divine  has  in  its  essence  and  of  itself,  the  human  has 
and  exercises  through  the  divine,  in  consequence  of  its  per- 
sonal union  with  it.  We  might  imitate  one  of  our  Lord's  own 
deep  expressions  in  characterizing  it,  and  might  suppose  Him 
to  saj^ :  "  As  my  divine  nature  hath  omnipresence  in  itself,  so 
hath  it  given  to  my  human  nature  to  have  omnipresence  in 
itself." 

From  what  has  been  said,  our  readers  will  be  prepared  to 
answer  for  themselves  the  most  specious  objection  which  is 


480  CONSERVATIVE   BE  FOB  MAT  I  OX. 

brought  against  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  That  objection 
is  this:  That  to  be  omnipresent  is  an  essential  attribute  of 
Godhead,  and,  therefore,  the  humanity  of  Christ  cannot  be 
omnipresent ;  for  that  would  be  to  suppose  humanity  to  have 
Answer  to  the  au  esscntial  attribute  of  divinity.  The  reply  is 
lr'hl%'ulre!an  ^asy  I  To  be  omnipresent  of  itself,  in  virtue  of  its 
doctrine.  g^oi  csseiice.,  is  an  attribute  of  the  divine,  and,  there- 

fore, the  humanity  of  Christ  is  not,  and  cannot  be  omnipresent 
of  itself  in  virtue  of  its  own  essence  ;  but  the  Godhead  can  render 
it  present  through  the  divine,  with  which  it  is  one  person.  The 
one  humanity  of  Christ  can  be  present  in  two  modes  :  one,  finite 
and  independent,  in  which  mode  it  is  present  of  itself ,  by  virtue 
of  its  own  essence  ;  the  other,  infinite  and  dependent,  in  which 
it  is  not  present  of  itself ^  in  virtue  of  its  own  essence,  for  that,  we 
admit,  would  be  to  claim  for  it  a  divine  attribute,  but  is  ren- 
dered present  by  the  divine.  In  other  words,  the  Godhead, 
which  of  itself  is  present,  makes  present  the  human,  which  is 
one  person  with  it.  So,  to  be  conscious  in  its  own  essence,  or  of 
its  own  nature,  is  an  essential  property  of  soul,  not  of  matter ; 
therefore,  the  human  eye,  in  its  own  essence  or  nature,  has  no 
power  of  being  conscious  of  light ;  but  when  the  eye  is  united 
as  a  part  of  the  body,  in  one  person  with  the  soul,  the  eye  has 
a  real  sight  through  the  soul,  as  the  soul  has  its  sight  hj  the 
eye  ;  but  there  are  not  two  consciousnesses.  The  soul  does  not 
give  up  its  consciousness,  nor  does  the  eye  receive  it.  Both 
retain  their  essential  attributes.  The  eye  does  not  become 
spirit,  nor  the  soul  become  matter;  nor  has  the  soul  one  con- 
sciousness, nor  the  eye  another ;  but  the  whole  person  has  its 
one  consciousness,  through  the  soul  and  by  the  eye.  There  is 
a  common  participation  of  the  two  natures  in  the  act  of  the 
one  person  ;  and  not  verbally,  but  really,  the  man  sees  through 
his  soul  and  by  his  eye ;  the  eye-  itself  really  receiving  a  dis- 
tinct set  of  powers,  from  its  union  with  the  soul,  and  the  soul 
exercising  its  own  essential  power,  under  a  wholly  new  set  of 
conditions,  in  consequence  of  its  union  with  the  eye.  But  if 
some  minute  philosopher  persists  in  saying:  You  then  attribute 
to  matter  the  consciousness  which  alone  pertains  to  mind,  we 
reply  :  An  independent,  self-originating  consciousness  belongs 


DOCTJIIXES   OF  THE  PKRSOX  OF    CHRIST.      481 

to  mind ;  but  a  dependent,  soul-originated  consciousness  he- 
longs  to  matter.  There  is  no  transfer  of  properties ;  but  tliere 
is  a  common  participation  in  them.  And  so,  in  some  sense, 
and  yet  with  the  infinite  difference  made  by  the  nature  of  the 
subjects  in  this  case,  we  reply  to  the  sophism  against  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Church :  The  divine  in  Christ  is  forever  divine  ; 
the  human  forever  human ;  but  as  they  can  never  be  con- 
founded, so  can  they  never  be  separated ;  and  the  one  person 
participates  in  both,  and  each  has  a  personal  communication 
with  the  attributes  of  the  other.  "  Great  is  the  mystery  of 
Godliness:  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh." 

In  Dr.  Gerhart's  further  development  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
German  Reformed  Church,  especially  as  related  to  The  Refomud 
that  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  goes  on  to  say,  in  doctrines  of  tbe 
immediate  connection  with  the  words  on  w^hich  we  Person  of  christ. 
have  already  dwelt:  ''The  Reformed  .  .  thus  emphasizing 
especially  the  difference  of  the  two  natures,  though  affirming 
them  to  be  inseparably  and  eternally  united  in  one  person." 
The  German  Reformed  Church  certainly  does  not  affirm  more 
emphatically  than  the  Lutheran  that  the  two  natures  are  dif- 
ferent, although  it  may  exaggerate  the  difference  until  it 
obscures  the  doctrine  of  the  unity.  But  when  Dr.  Gerhart 
says  that  his  Church  affirms  the  two  natures  to  "  be  insepara- 
bly  and  eternally  united  in  the  one  person,"  he  strikes  the  very 
rock  which  is  fatal  to  the  logical  consistency  of  the  whole 
un-Lutheran  view  of  this  great  subject.  For  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  he  admits  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  is  present. 
Kow,  either  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  united  with  the 
divine  there,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  be  there  united  with  it,  it 
must  be  there  present  with  it,  for  personal  union  implies  not 
only  presence,  but  the  most  intimate  species  of  presence.  If  it 
be  not  united  with  it  there,  it  is  separated  from  it  there,  and 
consequently  not  inseparably  united.  Except  in  the  locality 
in  which  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  confined,  on  the 
Reformed  theory,  the  human  is  separated  from  the  divine  and 
the  divine  from  the  human.  So  far  then  from  the  union,  on 
this  theory,  being  inseparable,  there  is  but  a  solitary  point  at 
which  the  two  natures  are  not  separated.     As  is  infinity  to  a 

31 


482  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

space  of  a  few  feet,  so  is  the  separateness  of  the  two  natures 
of  Christ  to  their  unity  on  the  Reformed  theory.  And  this 
shows  that  the  divergence  of  the  Reforncied  and  Lutheran 
views  on  the  Lord's  Supper  originates  in  a  radical  diversity  on 
one  point  of  doctrine,  of  the  highest  importance,  in  regard  to 
the  person  of  Christ.  When  the  Augsburg  Confession  ^  says 
that  the  two  natures  are  "  in  unitate  persona  inseperalnUter 
conjunctse,"  (in  unity  of  person  inseparably  Qon^oinQ^^  it  asserts 
what  in  its  sense  the  Reformed  doctrine  denies.  The  connection 
of  the  two  doctrines  of  the  inseparableness  of  Christ's  person, 
and  the  co-presence  of  them  in  the  Supper,  is  no  afterthought 
of  the  stricter  Lutheran  theology,  but  was  distinctly  before 
Melanchthon's  mind  in  the  whole  era  of  the  composition  of  the 
Confession.  Thus,  January  30,  1529,  Melanchthon  wrote:  "  It 
is  not  to  be  imagined  that  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  anywhere  where 
His  humanity  is  not ;  for  what  is  this  but  to  separate  Christ  ?  "f 
And  a  little  later,  April,  1529 :  "  Why  should  there  be  these 
contentions  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  As  all  confess 
that  Christ  is  present  in  the  communion  {synaxi),  according 
to  His  divine  nature,  to  what  purpose  is  it  to  separate  the 
humanity  from  the  divinity  ?''%  ^^  ^  similar  strain  he  writes 
to  (Ecolampadius,  April  8, 1529 :  "  I  look  at  Christ's  promises 
of  this  kind,  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world  1 '  where  there  is  no  need  to  tear  away  the  divinity  from 
the  humanity.  Hence  (proinde)  I  believe  that  this  sacrament  is 
the  testimony  of  a  true  presence.  .  .  It  is  a  sentiment  unworthy 
of  Christians^  that  Christ  in  such  a  way  occupies  a  part  of 
heaven  —  that  He  sits  in  it  as  if  shut  up  in  prison.  .  .  AVe  are 
to  form  our  judgment  of  heavenly  things  not  from  geometry, 
but  from  the  Word  of  God."  §  These  extracts  show  that  Me- 
lanchthon meant  by  an  "  inseparable  "  union,  one  which  ex- 
cluded the  separation  in  space  as  well  as  in  time,  and  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  on  the  personal  co-presence 

*Art.  III.  1. 

■}•  Corp.  Reform.    I.  No.  585.     Non    est   fingendum,  alicubi   esse   divinitatem 
Cbristi,  ubi  non  sit  humanitas.     Quid  hoc  est  aliud,  quam  seperare  Christum? 
+  Corp.  Ref.  I.  No.  596.     Quid  attinet  discerpere  humanitatem  a  divinitate  ? 
^Corp.  Ref.  I.  No.  598. 


'  s  en  c  e 
earth. 


OUR   SAVIOUR'S  PRESENCE  IK  HE  AVE  X.        483 

of  both  natures  of  Christ  is  but  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  am  pi  i  tied. 

Dr.  Gerhart  goes  on  to  state  very  fairly  the  doctrines  which 
are  necessarily  involved  in  the  view  of  liis  Church.  ^^^^  saviour's 
He  says  :*"  Before  the  Ascension,  the  human  was  pr 
located  on  earth."  With  this  proposition  as  a 
positive  one,  we  agree ;  but  if  it  means  that  even  when  on 
earth  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord  had  no  capacity  of  a 
higher  presence  through  the  divine  in  the  one  person,  our 
Church  would  deny  it.  Our  Lord  speaks  of  Himself  to  Is'ico- 
demus  as  "  He  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of 
man  which  is  in  heaven."  The  difference  betw^een  our  Lord 
on  earth  and  in  glory  was  not  in  what  He  had  intrinsically, 
nor  in  what  He  had  the  ability  to  do,  but  in  what  He  volun- 
tarily exercised,  or  chose  to  forego.  His  humiliation  consisted 
in  the  ordinary  abnegation  of  the  use  of  the  powers  which 
abode  in  Him  intrinsically  ;  but  at  times  He  chose,  even  on 
earth,  to  reveal  that  glory.  He  allowed  the  form  of  God  to 
manifest  itself  in  His  transfiguration,  and  in  His  miracles,  but 
His  equality  with  God  was  none  the  more  positive  then  than 
when  His  sweat,  mingling  with  His  blood,  fell  to  the  ground 
in  Gethsemane.  He  moved  on  earth  in  the  ordinary  voluntary 
suspension  of  the  exercise  of  His  great  prerogatives.  While 
our  Church,  therefore,  holds  most  firmly  that  His  human 
nature  was  on  earth  locally,  she  denies  that  it  had  no  other 
power  of  presence  than  the  local,  and  that  in  every  sense, 
necessarily  and  unchangeably,  it  was  on  earth  only. 

But  Dr.  Gerhart  states  still  more  fully,  and  with  even  more 
transparent  fairness,  the  doctrine  of  his  Church  our  saviour's 
thus:  "After  the  ascension  it  (the  human)  was  f,e7ven  The'iu- 
located  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  nowhere  else,  formed  theory. 
being  excluded  from  the  earth,  and  limited,  to  the  place  of  exal- 
tation in  heaven."  The  symbolical  orthodoxy  of  this  position 
he  proves  by  a  citation  from  the  Genevan  Catechism,  which  is 
all  very  well,  if  the  German  Reformed  Church  is  in  the  whole 
unity  of  the  Calvinistic  faith  ;  but  is  not  so  satisfactory,  if  that 
Church,  as  we  understand  some  of  its  ablest  divines  now^  to 
contend,  is  not  Calvinistic. 


484  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

In  Dr.  Gerhart's  statement,  if  it  be  analyzed,  are  the  follow- 
ing propositions :  1.  That  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  local- 
ized. 2.  That  its  locality  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  3. 
That  by  necessary  consequence  the  right  hand  of  God  is  a 
locality.  4.  That  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  no^\^lere  else  ; 
but  is,  5.  Excluded  from  the  earth  ;  and,  6.  Limited  to  the 
place  of  exaltation  in  heaven. 

On  every  one  of  these  points  the  Lutheran  Church  differs  from 
The  Lutheran  ^^^^  Rcfomied,  if  Dr.  Gcrhart  presents  the  Reformed 
Aniithesis.         vlcw  corrcctly,  as  we  think,  in  the  main,  he  does. 

1.  The  generally  received  view  in  our  Church  is  that  even 
the  finite  presence  of  our  Saviour's  human  nature  is  not  locals 
but  definitive^  that  is,  that  its  mode  of  presence  is  more  closely 
analogous  to  that  in  which  a  created  spirit  is  present,  than  to 
that  of  unglorified  matter.  St.  Paul  declares  that  the  resurrec- 
tion body  "•  is  a  spiritual  body,"  that  is,  a  body  analogous  in 
its  properties  to  spirit,  and,  as  the  antithesis  to  ''  natural,"  a 
body  with  supernatural  properties.  That  our  Saviour  at  His 
resurrection  entered  on  the  plenary  use  of  the  powers  whose 
exercise  He  had  foregone  in  His  humiliation,  is  so  well  known 
as  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  that  we  need  cite  no  passages  to 
prove  it.  But  we  might  cite  many  passages  from  Calvinistic 
writers  to  show  that  not  all  of  them  sympathize  with  the  dis- 
position to  narrow  the  power  of  our  Saviour's  humanity.  AVe 
will  give  a  single  extract  from  one  of  the  most  finished  and 
thoughtful  Calvinistic  writers  of  our  day,  the  late  Dr.  James 
Hamilton.  It  will  be  found  in  his  delightful  little  volume, 
"A  Morning  beside  the  Lake  of  Galilee,"  Avhich 

1.  The  Saviour's      ,         ,,  ^  .  o         •  '  x* 

resunection-iitc.  dwclls  upou  ouc  sccue  lu  our  baviour  s  resurrection- 
iiaiMiitu...  i-^^  ^^  earth.  He  says:  "Christ  came  in  the  morn- 
ing. So  at  first  we  are  apt  to  say  ;  but  it  would  be  putting  it 
more  correctly,  if  we  said  that  Christ,  who  had  been  present 
all  the  night,  allowed  Himself  to  be  seen  in  the  morning.  He 
was  now  risen  from  the  dead,  and  had  put  on  that  glorious 
body  which  evades  our  grosser  sense,  and  needs  an  act  of  will 
to  make  it  visible.*     In  His  ubiquitous  Godhead  everywhere 

*  After  His  resurrection,  Christ's  body  was  only  visible  by  a  distinct  act  of  His 
7f\\\.  —  Chryaostom,  quoled  by  Trench. 


THE  RIGHT  HAND    OF  GOD.  485 

present,  at  any  moment,  or  in  any  place,  lie  could  emerge  to 
view  and  reappear  in  corporeal  guise,  so  that  former  intimacy 
was  able  to  exclaim,  '  It  is  the  Lord,'  and  so  that  He  Himself 
was  able  to  sny,  '  Reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into 
my  side ;'  and  as  soon  as  tlie  purpose  was  fulfilled,  without 
necessarily  quitting  the  spot,  the  glorified  body  ceased  to  be 
seen.  In  its  escape  from  the  sepulchre,  more  entirely  trans- 
figured than  it  had  been  on  the  Holy  Mount,  it  was  only  when 
the  Lord  Jesus  so  willed,  that  in  flesh  and  blood,  as  of  old, 
that  body  stood  revealed ;  and  when  the  design  was  accom- 
plished, it  again  retired  into  the  super-sensual  sphere  of  its 
habitual  invisibleness.  It  was  'on  this  wise  that  Jesus  showed 
Himself,'  when,  at  any  period  after  His  resurrection.  He  was  seen 
at  all.  It  was  not  by  entering  an  apartment,  or  by  arriving 
from  a  journey,  but  by  coming  forth  from  the  impalpable  and 
viewless,  that,  whether  to  longing  disciples  or  to  the  startled 
persecutor.  He  stood  disclosed  ;  no  phantom,  no  mere  vision, 
courting  severest  scrutiny  :  '  Handle  me  and  see,' —  and  into  that 
materialism,  reembodied  by  His  own  divine  volition,  the  normal 
state  of  His  glorified  humanity  was  such  as  mortal  sense  cannot 
grasp  ;  and  just  as  when  the  body  was  '  earthy,'  the  thing  super- 
natural was  for  His  '  face  to  shine  as  the  sun,'  so  now  that  it 
was  '  heavenly,'  the  thing  supernatural  was  for  that  body  to 
come  out  appreciable  by  untransfigured  organs  —  perceptible 
to  eyes  and  ears  which  were  not  yet  immortal  like  itself." 

If  such  was  the  nature  of  the  manifestations  of  Christ's 
spiritual  body  in  what  we  might  style  the  provisional  inter- 
vals, what  might  we  expect  when  it  entered  upon  all  the  pleni- 
tude of  its  glory  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ? 

2.  For  to  us  the  right  hand  of  God  is  not  a  place,  nor  is  the 
ascension  to  His  right  hand  the  rising  to  a  place.  If  the  right 
hand  of  God  means  a  place,  we  might  well  ask.  Where  is  His 
left  hand  ?  To  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  to  be  associated 
in  His  sovereign  rule,  and  to  share  in  His  sovereign  power. 
The  right  hand  of  God,  if  j^ou  relate  it  to  presence,  2.  tiu-  i-igu 
is  everywhere  ;  if  you  take  it  in  its  Scriptural  use,  ^andofGod. 
it  either  means  the  omnipotence  of  God,  or  His  regal  majesty, 
and  has  no  reference  to  space  at  all.     When  we  teach  that 


486  CONSEBVATIVE   REFORMATION 

Christ  sittetli  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  we  mean  that  He  rules 
in  co-sovereignty  with  the  Father,  in  a  potency  which,  as  it  is 
exercised  on  all  things,  must  he  in  all  places,  a  potency  which, 
as  it  is  inseparahle  from  the  suhstance  of  His  whole  person,  in 
which  it  inheres,  implies  the  presence  of  that  whole  person, 
and,  therefore,  of  His  humanity,  which  is  an  essential  and 
inseparahle  constituent  of  that  person. 

3.  Hence  the  Lutheran  Church,  while  it  firmly  helieves  that 
the  presence  which  the  human  nature  of  Christ  has  in  and  of 
itself  is  determinate  and  limited,  believes  that  there  is  a  pres- 
ence of  that  human  nature  no  less  real,  in  and  through  the 
divine  nature  with  which  it  is  one  person,  and  that  in  this 
mode  of  presence  it  is  as  really  on  earth  as  in  heaven.  God 
has  given  Him  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  His  posses- 
sion ;  His  mediatorial  dominion  is  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from 
the  river  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth.  God  has  said :  "  I  will 
set  His  hand  in  the  sea,  and  His  right  hand  in  the  rivers,"  and 
w^e  devoutly  rest  in  the  faith  that  our  Saviour  rules  not  by 
vicars,  hut  in  His  own  glorious  and  all-sufficient  person,  true 
God  and  true  man  inseparably.  When  we  remember  that  the 
3  s  irit  and  ^^^b'  ^bsolutc  csscncc  is  Spirit,  that  all  matter  is 
matter.  thouglit  iuto  being  by  the  infinite  Spirit,  rests  on 

that  essence  for  its  continued  existence,  derives  all  its  attri- 
butes from,  owes  all  its  properties  to,  the  will  which  gave  and 
continues  its  being  ;  wdien  we  remember  that  the  body  of  our 
Lord  is  in  personal  union  with  the  absolute  essence  which 
creates  all  things,  we  can  easily  draw  the  inference  not  only 
that  any  properties  which  it  was  possible  for  God  to  will  that 
His  body  should  have,  should  belong  to  it,  but  that  it  would 
have  an  adaptation  as  a  personal  organ  of  the  divine  nature, 
and  properties  necessary  for  that  adaptation  which  would 
infinitely  transcend  the  sublimest  forms  of  all  other  matter. 
H  such  subtle  matter,  as  the  etherial  medium  which  undulates 
into  light,  be  the  mere  raiment  of  God,  what  may  be  the  exqui- 
site subtlety  of  that  matter  which  is  assumed  into  His  very 
person?  Science  detects  a  form  of  matter  whose  unduhitions, 
in  forming  one  color,  are  seven  hundred  and  twenty-seven  mil- 
lions of  millions  in  a  second,  and  it  is  within  the  power  of  God 


THE  HEIDELBERG   CATECIIIFiM.  487 

to  give  to  matter  properties  which  transcend  those  of  light, 
infinitely  more  than  the  properties  of  light  transcend  those  of 
lead  or  clay.  When  we  think  of  matter  with  this  amazing 
range  of  qualities,  taken  as  the  very  organ  of  incarnate  Deity, 
we  may  realize  that  the  demands  of  the  "  spiritual  body  "  of 
our  Lord,  on  faith,  pertain  to  the  highest  mysteries  and  sub- 
Hmest  trust  with  which  it  called  to  justify  its  work  of  bring- 
ing every  thought  into  captivity  to  the  obedience  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Gerhart  goes  on  to  illustrate  his  position:  "The  Heidel- 
berg Catechism,"  he  says,  "  inquires  in  the  forty-  The iiikuiberg 
seventh  Question :  '  Is  not  then  Christ  with  us,  as  cateci.i.m. 
He  has  promised,  unto  the  end  of  the  world  ? '"  It  seems  as 
if  it  were  felt  that  the  Reformed  position  was  open  to  the  sus- 
picion of  seeming  to  empty  Christ's  promise  of  its  fulness. 
I^or  does  the  answer  of  the  Catechism  relieve  this  suspicion. 
Its  answer  is :  "  Christ  is  true  man  and  true  God.  According 
to  His  human  nature.  He  is  not  now  upon  earth  ;  but  accord- 
ing to  His  Godhead,  majesty,  grace,  and  Spirit,  He  at  no  time 
departs  from  us."  The  reply  wears  to  us  the  air  of  a  certain 
evasiveness,  as  if  it  parried  the  question  rather  than  answered 
it.  It  seems  to  answer  a  certain  question,  but  really  answers 
another  ;  or  rather,  it  seems  to  answer  affirmatively, but  actually 
answers  negatively.  If  Christ  he  true  man  and  true  God,  then 
humanit}'  and  divinity  are  inseparable  elements  of  His  essence  ; 
where  either  is  wanting,  Christ  is  wanting.  If  the  question 
be,  Is  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  present?  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  answers  it,  affirming  that  it  is.  If  the  question  be. 
Is  the  human  nature  of  Christ  present  ?  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism answers,  and  says  it  is  not.  But  if  the  question  be,  as 
it  is,  Is  Christ  present?  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  does  not 
answer  it,  for  it  leaves  the  very  heart  of  the  query  untouched : 
Can  Christ,  in  the  absence  of  an  integral  part  of  His  person, 
really  be  said  to  be  present  ?  As  far  as  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism implies  an  answer  to  this  question,  that  answer  seems 
to  us  to  be,  Christ  is  not  -present.  Ursinns,  in  His  explanation 
of  the  Catechism,  is  compelled  virtually  to  concede  this,  for  on 
the  thirty-sixth  Question,  in  reply  to  the  objection,  that  on 
His  theory,  as  "  the  divinity  is  but  half  Christ,  therefore  only 


488  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

half  Christ  is  present  with  the  Church,"  he  replies :  "  If  by 
half  Christ  they  understand  one  nature  which  is  united  to  the 
other  in  the  same  person,  the  whole  reason  may  he  granted: 
namely,  that  not  both,  hut  one  nature  only  of  Christy  though 
united  to  the  other,  that  is.  His  Godhead,  is  present  icith  us." 
Leydecker,  in  commenting  on  this  Question,  says:  "The 
ahsence  of  the  human  nature  does  not  take  away  the  presence  of 
the  Deity."  ITeppe  (himself  Reformed)  indeed  declares  that  it 
is  the  Reformed  doctrine  that  "  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  not 
a  part  of  His  person,"  and  quotes  to  sustain  this  position, 
Polanus,  Heidegger,  Zanchius,  and  Cocceius,  but  it  does  not 
strike  us  that  Dr.  Heppe  has  understood  his  authorities,  or  the 
natural  force  of  his  own  terms. 

Xor  does  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  relieve  the  grand  diffi- 
culty of  its  theory  by  its  next  question  and  answer,  which  Dr. 
Gerhart  also  quotes.  "  Question  forty-eight :  But  if  His  human 
nature  is  not  present  wherever  His  Godhead  is,  are  not  the  two 
natures  in  Christ  separated  from  one  another?  By  no  means ; 
for  since  the  Godhead  is  incomprehensible  and  everywhere  pres- 
ent, it  must  follow  that  the  same  is  both  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  human  nature  He  assumed,  and  yet  none  the  less  in  it,  and 
remains  personally  united  to  it."  This  reply,  as  we  understand 
it,  runs  out  logically  into  this :  The  Godhead  is  inseparably 
connected  witli  the  humanity,  but  the  humanity  is  not  insep- 
arably connected  with  the  Godhead  ;  that  is,  one  part  of  the 
person  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  other,  but  the  other 
is  not  inseparably  connected  with  that  one  part :  the  whole 
second  person  of  the  Trinity  is  one  person  with  the  humanity 
in  one  point  of  space,  but  everywhere  else  it  is  not  one  person 
with  it.  There  is,  in  fact,  apparently  no  personal  union  what- 
ever, but  a  mere  local  connection  —  not  a  dwelling  of  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godliead  bodily,  but  simply  an  operative  mani- 
festation ;  two  persons  separable  and  in  every  place  but  one 
separated,  not  one  inseparable  person  —  inseparable  in  space  as 
well  as  in  time.  As  God  dwells  in  His  substantial  presence 
everywhere,  as  He  has  a  special  and  gracious  presence  in  the 
bodies  and  souls  of  believers,  as  He  so  dwelt  in  ins[)ired  men 
as  to  make  them  miraculous  organs  of  truth  and  of  supernatu- 


THE  HEIDELBERG    CATECHISM.  489 

ral  powers,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  prevent  this  low  view 
from  running  out  into  Socinianism,  as,  indeed,  it  actually  has 
run  in  Calvinistic  lands,  so  that  it  hecame  a  proverh,  often 
met  with  in  the  older  theoloo'ical  writers  —  "A  younix  Calvinist, 
an  old  Socinian."  This  peril  is  confessed  and  mourned  over 
by  great  Calvinistic  divines.  New  England  is  an  illustration 
of  it  on  an  immense  scale,  in  our  own  land.  Even  the  Socin- 
ianisni  of  other  parts  of  the  Protestant  world  illustrates  the 
same  tendency,  for  these  communions  have  either  developed 
out  of  Calvinistic  Churches,  as,  for  example,  the  Arminians, 
or  have  first  gone  over,  practically,  to  the  Reformed  basis, 
and  on  it  have  built  their  later  Rationalism,  as  in  the  apostate 
portions  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Just  those  portions  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  which  have  been  most  free  from  Socinian- 
ism,  are  those  which  have  been  characteristically  Lutheraniz- 
ing,  as  the  German  Reformed  and  the  Church  of  England. 
And  it  seems  to  us  that  the  most  dangerous  consequences 
might  be  logically  deduced  from  the  Reformed  theory.  The 
divine  nature  is  a  totality  and  an  absolute  unit,  in  which  there 
can  be  no  fractions.  It  does  not  exist,  and  is  not  present,  by 
parts,  but  as  a  whole.  It  is  present  not  by  extension  nor 
locality,  but  after  another  manner,  wholly  incomprehensible  to 
us,  not  less  real,  but  if  there  may  be  degrees  of  reality,  more 
real  than  the  local.  If  the  divine  nature  is  present  at  all  with- 
out the  human  nature  of  Christ,  the  whole  of  it  is  present 
without  that  human  nature.  If  the  whole  divine  nature  of 
Christ  be  present  on  earth  without  His  human  nature,  then 
the  whole  divine  nature  is  unincarnate  here.  If  it  be  unincar- 
nate  here,  then  it  could  take  to  itself  another  human  nature 
on  earth,  or,  for  the  matter  of  that,  an  infinite  number  of 
human  natures,  each  of  them  as  really  one  person  with  it 
apparently,  on  this  theory,  as  the  human  nature  of  Christ  now 
is.  If,  moreover,  such  a  conjunction  as  this  theory  asserts  is 
really  a  unity  of  person,  then  this  infinitude  of  human  iiatures 
being  one  person  in  the  divine,  would  be  one  person  with  each 
other  also.  Nor  is  this  supposition  of  the  evolution  of  such 
a  theory  from  these  premises  purely  imaginary.  Dr.  Brew- 
ster, in  his  Defence  of  the  Theory  of  the  Plurality  of  Worlds, 


490  CONSERVATIVE    REFOBMATIOX. 

has  actually  tried  to  solve  certain  difficulties  by  suggesting  the 
idea  of  multiplied  cotemporaneous  incarnations  of  the  Son  of 
God  in  different  worlds.  "May  not  the  divine  nature,"  he 
says,  "  which  can  neither  suffer  nor  die,  and  which  in  our 
planet,  once  only,  clothed  itself  in  humanity,  resume  else- 
where a  physical  form,  and  expiate  the  guilt  of  unnumbered 
worlds  ?  ""^  This  is  giving  us  Hindoo  mythology  for  divine 
theology,  and  substituting  Vishnu  for  Christ. 

This,  then,  is  the  result  which  our  Church,  guided  by  God's 
Spirit  in  His  Word,  has    reached :  That  a   unity 
which  does  not  imply  the  co-presence  of  its  con- 
stituent parts  cannot  be  called  a  personal  unity,  that  unity 
which  is  so  perfect  that  the  very  identity  of  the  subject  of  it 
centres  in  it.     With  this  result  our  faith  reverently  coincides, 
and  our  reason  is  in  harmony  with  our  faith.     To  us  there 
seems   no   real   incarnation   possible,  logically^   on   any   other 
theory;  but  if  logic  allowed  it,  the  Word  of  God  would  not. 
Dr.  Gerhart  goes  on  to  say :  "  The  question  arises  logically : 
The  Lord's  Sup-  Siuce  the  huuiauity  of  Christ  is  limited  to  the  right 
and"  L»?hentn  ^^xid  of  God,  aud  bclievers  on  earth  commune,  in 
views.  the  Lord's   Supper,  with  the  flesh   and  blood   of 

Christ,  no  less  than  with  His  Spirit,  how  is  the  communion 
established  and  maintained  ?  "  As  a  voucher  for  the  doctrine 
which  underlies  the  question.  Dr.  Gerhart  gives,  in  a  note,  a 
sentence  from  Calvin's  Confession  of  Faith,  concerning  the 
Eucharist,  1537,  which,  literally  translated,  runs  thus  :  "  When, 
therefore,  we  speak  of  the  communion  which  believers  have 
with  Christ,  we  mean  that  they  commune  not  less  with  His 
flesh  and  blood  than  with  His  Spirit,  so  that  they  thus  possess 
the  whole  Christ."  Dr.  Gerhart  goes  on  to  say,  in  answer  to 
the  question  given  above :  "In  opposition  to  the  Ubiquitarian 
theory  of  the  Lutherans,  the  Reformed  theologians  replied : 
By  the  mysterious  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  elevating  the 
hearts  of  believers  to  Christ  in  heaven,  who  feeds  and  nour- 
ishes them  with  the  life-giving  power  of  His  flesh  and  blood.'' 
If  we  analyze  these  sentences,  we  find  that  they  express  or 
imply  the  following  propositions  : 

*More  Worlds  than  One.  N.  Y.  1854.  p.  148. 


FIRST  AND   SECOND   PROPOSITIONS.  491 

1.  "  The  humanity  of  Christ  is  limited  to  the  right  hand  of 
God."  We  have  tried  to  show  that  the  right  J,.^^^  p^oposi- 
hand  of  God  is  not  limited,  but,  on  the  contrary,  tion. 
involves  omnipresent  and  omnipotent  rule.  Whatever  effect, 
therefore,  being  at  the  right  hand  of  God  may  have  on  the 
humanity  of  Christ,  it  certainly  does  not  limit  it. . 

2.  "  Believers,  on  earth,  commune,  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
with  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ."  If  by  this  g^^^„^  p^^^^. 
is  meant  that  none  but  those  who  receive  the  ^'''^n. 
Lord's  Supper  in  faith  share  in  its  blessings,  the  statement  is 
entirely  Scriptural  and  Lutheran.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
expressly  rejects  the  idea  of  those  who  teach  that  "  the  Sacra- 
ments justify  by  the  outward  work  wrought,  {ex  opere  operato,) 
and  who  do  not  teach  that  faith  is  required  in  the  use  of  the 
Sacraments." 

But  as  the  communion  is  not  based  upon  something  ideal, 
but  on  a  supernatural  verity,  upon  a  presence  spiritual,  heav- 
enly, and  incomprehensible  in  its  manner,  yet  most  true,  a 
presence  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  as  the  mystery  of  this 
presence  has  its  heart  not  in  us,  but  in  the  Incarnate  Mediator, 
we  believe  that  alike  to  those  w^ho  receive  the  Supper  in  faith, 
and  to  those  who  receive  it  in  unbelief,  the  object  sacramen tally 
received  is  the  same.  The  believer  embraces  it  in  faith,  to  his 
soul's  health  ;  and  the  unbeliever,  "  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
body,"  but  treating  that  which  he  receives  as  if  it  were  mere 
bread,  "  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,"  but  it  is 
the  same  thing  which  is  salutary  to  the  one  and  judicial  to 
the  other.  When  a  Paine,  or  a  Voltaire,  takes  a  Bible  into 
his  hand  to  turn  its  life-giving  nourishment  to  poison  in  his 
own  soul,  the  Bible  is  no  less  the  Bible,  no  less  really  the  organ 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  than  when  an  Arndt  or  an  Edwards  bends 
over  it  in  the  deepest  devotion.  When  the  great  Kohinoor 
diamond  shone  in  the  head  of  the  Hindoo  idol,  or  when  it 
was  in  the  hand  of  the  soldier  who  stole  it,  it  was  no  less  a 
diamond  than  it  is  now,  lying  amid  the  jewels  of  a  great 
empire.  When  the  Ark  of  the  Lord  sat  in  Dagon's  temple,  it 
was  no  less  the  Ark  than  when  it  was  enshrined  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies ;  and  the  judgment  which  went  forth  from  it  against 


492  COXSEBVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

the  fishy  idol,  equally  with  the  joyous  light  which  gladdened 
the  High  Priest  when  he  went  within  the  veil,  attested  it  to 
be  the  earthly  throne  of  the  Most  High.  It  might  as  well  be 
said,  that  because  the  Romanist  does  not  discern  the  bread  in 
the  Supper,  he  receives  no  bread,  as  that  the  unbeliever, 
because  he  (Joes  not  discern  the  body  of  our  Lord,  does  not 
commune  with  it  sacramentallj'.  Here  is  a  grand  distinctive 
element  in  the  Lutheran  view,  that,  apart  from  all  qualities  in 
the  recipient,  the  presence  of  Christ's  humanity  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  positive  reality.  The  Sacramental  communion 
rests  on  His  person,  not  on  our  ideas.  To  a  sick  man,  the  food 
he  receives  may  be  as  poison,  but  it  is  none  the  less  food,  with 
all  the  powers  of  nutriment  which  inhere  in  food.  The  reason 
that  it  does  not  nourish  is  in  him,  not  in  it.  So  the  bread  of 
life,  whether  offered  in  the  Word  or  in  the  Sacrament,  is  the 
same  intrinsically,  and  in  its  proper  virtue,  though  unbelief 
converts  that  heavenly  food  to  its  own  poison  —  changing, 
indeed,  its  effect,  but  leaving  its  substance  unchanged. 

3.  The  communion,  according  to  Dr.  Gerhart,  with  the  flesh 
Third  Proposi-  ^ud  blood  of  ChHst,  takes  place    in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
*»°"-  ^9e?\     But  why,  we  may  ask,  limit  such  a  commu- 

nion as  he  defines  by  the  Lord's  Supper?  The  bread  and  wine 
are  not  the  medium  of  it  —  and,  as  mere  reminders  of  it,  they 
have  not  the  power  which  the  Word  has.  On  the  Reformed 
view,  the  Sacramental  elements  have  a  function  limited  by 
their  didactic  or  suggestive  power  over  us  ;  for,  up  to  this 
point,  the  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  views  are  coincident.  If 
it  be  answered,  that  the  whole  transaction  of  the  Supper,  the 
Word,  and  outward  signs  and  special  prayers,  has  extraordi- 
nary power,  still  it  is  the  same  in  kind  with  the  other  means 
of  grace,  however  much  it  may  differ  from  them  in  degree. 
Such  a  communion,  in  a  w^ord,  as  the  believer  has  with  Christ, 
in  the  Holy  Supper,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  can  have,  and 
does  have,  on  this  theory,  elsewhere.  If  the  Lord's  Supper 
has  no  special  organ  of  communion,  (and  if  it  has  the  Holy 
Spirit  only,  it  has  no  special  organ,  for  He  is  the  general  organ 
of  all  grace,)  then  it  has  no  special  character.  If  the  bread 
and  wine  are  acknowledged  as    special  organs,  the   external 


FOURTH  PROPOSITIOK  493 

appointed  media  of  tlie  distinctive  blessings  of  the  commu- 
nion, then  you  accept  the  Lutheran  doctrine  that  Sacramental 
communion  is  oral,  for  by  oral  communion  is  meant  no  more 
than  this  —  that  that  wliich  is  the  organic  medium  of  the 
communion  is  received  by  the  mouth,  that  through  the  natu- 
ral we  reach  the  supernatural.  Our  theologians,  when  they 
speak  of  a  reception  by  the  mouth,  mean  no  more  than  this  — 
that  he  that  receives  the  bread  and  wine  by  the  mouth  natu- 
rally, thereby,  as  by  an  organ,  receives  the  humanity  of  Christ 
sacramentally  and  supernaturally,  just  as  when  faith  cometh 
by  hearing,  the  ear  receives  the  outward  word  naturally,  and 
thereby  organically  receives  the  Holy  Spirit,  mediately  and 
supernaturally,  who  conveys  Himself  in,  with,  and  under  that 
word. 

4.  Dr.  Gerhart  says  that  the  view  of  his  Church  is  that  the 
communion  "  in  the  Lord's  Supper  "  is  "  with  the  Fourth  Propo- 
Jiesh  and  blood  of  Christ  no  less  than  with  His  ^i^^'^"- 
Spirit."  Here  there  seems  to  be  a  great  advance  on  the  Zwin- 
glian  view.  A  communion  involves  communication  on  the 
one  part,  and  reception  on  the  other.  It  is  the  Reformed  doc- 
trine apparently  that  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  are  commu- 
nicated and  received  no  less  than  His  Spirit.  The  Reformed 
have  insisted  that  to  the  question,  What  is  communicated  and 
received  in  the  Lord's  Supper?  their  answer  is  identical  with 
ours.  Christ's  body  and  blood  are  given  and  received.  This, 
Dr.  Gerhart  says,  "  was  not  at  issue  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
On  this  point.  Reformed  and  Lutherans  were  agreed."  Even 
Zwingli,  in  his  letter  to  the  German  princes,  says :  "  We  have 
never  denied  that  the  bodi/  of  Christ  is  in  the  Supper."  Far 
more  strongly,  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes,  says :  "We  are  fed 
with  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ.  Christ  refreshes  us  with 
the  eating  of  His  flesh  and  the  drinking  of  His  blood.  There 
is  a  true  and  substantial  communication  of  the  bodf/  and  blood  of 
our  Lord."  "  This  mystery  is  in  its  own  nature  incomprehen' 
sible.  .  .  The  body  of  our  Lord  was  once  offered  for  us  that 
we  may  now  eat  it  {nunc  eo  vescamur)^  and  by  eating,  may 
experience  in  us  the  efficacy  of  that  one  only  sacrifice.  .  .  Thus 
sound  the  words  of  promise.  .  .  We  are  commanded,  therefore, 


494  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

to  take  find  eat  that  body  which  was  once  offered  for  onr  sal- 
vation :  that  while  we  see  ourselves  participants  of  this,  we 
may  trust  that  the  virtue  of  His  life-giving  death  is  strong 
within  us."*     "There  are  those  wdio  say  that  to  eat  Christ's 
flesh  and  drink  His  blood  is  nothing  else  than  believing  in 
Calvin  on  the  ChHst  Himsclf     But  to  me  it  seems  that  Christ 
Lord's  snpper.      j^caut  to  tcach   Something   clearer   and   sublimer 
than  this.  .  .  He  meant  to  teach  us  that  we  have  life  given  us 
by  true  participation  of  Himself  .  .  By  true  communication 
of  Himself  His  life  passes  over  into  us  and  becomes  ours,  .  .  . 
if  so  great  a  mystery  can  be  embraced  in  words  —  a  mystery 
which  I  cannot  even  grasp  in  thought.  .  .  I  confess  this  lest 
any  should  mete  its  sublimity  with  the  measure  of  my  infancy. 
.  .  Though    the   mind  can   reach  what  the   tongue   cannot 
express,  yet  here  the  mind  itself  is  overcome  and  overwhelmed 
with  the  greatness  of  the  thing.  .  .  The  mystery  of  the  Holy 
Supper  consists  of  two  things :    the  bodily  signs  .  .  and  the 
spiritual  verity,  which,  through  those  symbols,  is  at  the  same 
time   figured   and  imparted  (exhibetur).  .  .  I  say,  therefore, 
that  in  the  mystery  of  the  Supper,  through  (per)  the  symbols 
of  bread  and  wine,  Christ  is  truly  imparted  (exhiberi)  to  us, 
even  His  body  and  blood,  in  which  he  fulfilled  all  obedience 
to  obtain  our  justification:    by  which,  to  wit,  we   first   are 
united  into  one  body  w^ith  Him,  then  being  made  partakers  of 
His  substance,  w^e  experience  a  virtue  in  the  communication 
of  all  "good  things.  .  .  Those  absurdities"  (of  inclusion,  cir- 
cumscription, and  immensity,)  "being  set  aside,  I  w^illingly 
receive  whatever  it  is    possible   to   frame   (facere   potest)   to 
express  a  true  and  substantial  communication  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  w^hich,  under  the  sacred  symbols  of  the  Sup- 
per, is  imparted  (exhibetur)  to  believers.  .  .  If  any  one  ask  mc 
in  regard  to  the  mo(h,  I  am.  not  ashamed  to  confess  that  the 
secret  is  too  high  to  be  grasped  by  my  mind,  or  to  be  set  forth 
in  w^ords.  .  .  I  experience  rather  than  understand  it.  .  .  In 
His  Holy  Supper  He  commands  me,  under  (sub)  the  symbols 
of  bread  and  wine,  to  take,  eat  and  drink  His  body  and  blood. 

*Institut.  Lib.  IV.  ch.  xviii.  §  1.  Ed.  1543.  seq.     Corp.  Reformat,  sxix.  199. 
Ed.  Amstel.  ix.  364. 


"THE   UBIQUITARIAN  THEORY."  495 

I  doubt    not   but   that  He  truly  offers  them,  and  T  receive 
them."* 

We  could  continue  to  fill  pages  with  citations,  of  equal 
force,  from  Calvinistic  writers.  Whatever  interpretation 
we  put  upon  them,  they  at  least  make  it  clear  that  a  large 
part  of  the  phraseology  which  our  Church  uses  is  accepted  as 
sound  and  Scriptural  by  those  who  do  not  receive  her  doctrine. 
Those  who  shrink  back  from  the  terms  of  our  Church,  as  car- 
nal, will  find  that  her  antagonists  are  compelled  to  use  terms 
just  as  open  to  misconstruction.  It  is  just  as  Calvinistic,  on 
the  showing  of  Calvinistic  standards,  to  speak  of  eating  the 
body  and  drinking  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  Eucharist,  as  it 
is  Lutheran.  The  question  then  lies  fairly  before  the  Chris- 
tian—  Which  view,  Calvinistic  or  Lutheran,  more  honestly 
accepts  the  natural  meaning  of  the  premises,  which  is  in  more 
logical  harmony  with  their  necessary  issues,  and  which  more 
frankly  stands  by  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  terms  chosen  by 
itself  to  embody  its  faith  ? 

As  both  parties  start  with  the  same  form  of  words  as  to  the 
premises,  the  first  question  here  is,  Do  both  accept  "The  ubi<iui- 
them  in  the  same  sense?  On  one  point  we  admit  t'^"^" ^'^•'"''y- 
that  both  do  — that  is,  that  by  the  "flesh  and  blood  of  Christ," 
both  mean  His  true  human  body  and  blood  —  the  body  which 
hung  upon  the  cross,  and  which  still  maintains  its  identity, 
though  glorified  in  heaven.  But  when  the  question  arises.  Do 
both  mean  the  same  thing  when  they  speak  of  communing  with 
this  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  reply  is,  They  do  not.  Here 
the  Reformed  Church  seems  to  us  to  take  away  with  one  set  of 
terms  all  that  it  had  conceded  with  another.  But  although  it 
differs  from  us,  we  cannot  accept  all  of  Dr.  Gerhart's  phraseol- 
ogy in  regard  to  our  Church  as  accurately  marking  the  difter- 
ence.  He  characterizes  our  doctrine  as  the  "Ubiquitarian  theory 
of  the  Lutherans."  We  can  conceive  no  reason  why  Dr.  Gerhart 
applies  the  word  "Ubiquitarian,"  unless  it  is  that  he  imagines 
that  there  is  some  ground  for  the  reproach  against  our  doctrine, 
which  was  originally  couched  under  this  word,  which  is,  indeed, 

*Inptitut.  ch.  xviii.  19,  22,  30.     Corp.  Ref.   vol.   xsix.  1003-1010.     Ed.  Am- 
stelod.  1667.  ix.  370.  seq. 


496  COXSEFVATIVE   Pc  EFOB MATIOX. 

a  barbarous  and  unnecessary  one,  and  was  devised  by  the  enemies 
of  our  Church  to  injure  it.  When  our  Church  is  charged  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  "  Ubiquity  "  of  Christ's  human  nature,  it  is 
usually  meant,  either,  1 :  that  the  human  nature  in  Christ  is 
everywhere  present,  in  the  same  way  as  the  divinity,  as  an 
infinite  essence,  or  by  some  essential  virtue  or  property  of  its 
own  nature;  or,  2:  that  the  human  nature  has  been  made 
equal  to  the  divine,  in  its  substance,  essence,  or  essential  prop- 
erties ;  or,  3 :  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  locally  expanded 
in  all  places  of  heaven  and  earth  — o??^  cnid  all  of  which  our 
Church  rejects  in  the  most  unqualified  terms.  The  Godhead  alone 
has  an  essential  omnipresence.  The  human  nature  has  a  per- 
sonal omnipresence  —  that  is,  a  presence  not  in  or  of  itself,  but 
through  the  divine,  in  virtue  of  its  personal  union  with  it.  It 
is  present  not  by  extension  or  locality.  The  Godhead  itself 
is  not  present  by  extension  or  locality ;  neither  does  it  render 
the  human  thus  present.  The  divine  nature  is  present  after 
the  manner  of  an  infinite  Spirit,  incomprehensible  to  us ;  and 
the  human  is  present  after  the  manner  in  which  an  infinite 
Spirit  renders  present  a  human  nature  which  is  one  person 
with  it  —  a  manner  not  less,  nor  more,  incomprehensible  to  us 
than  the  other.  The  true  designation  of  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine, on  this  point,  would  be,  "  The  j^ersonal  omnipresence  of 
the  human  nature  of  Christ." 

In  opposition  to  the  Lutheran  theory,  Dr.  Gerhart  says  : 
"The  Reformed  theologians  (in  answer  to  the 
Th^eory^''^°srme  qucstiou  '.  How  is  this  comuiuuion  with  the  fiesh 
oigectiuns  to  it.  g^cL  blood  of  Christ  established  and  maintained?) 
replied :  By  the  mysterious  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  elevat- 
ing; the  hearts  of  believers  to  Christ  in  heaven,  who  feeds  and 
nourishes  them  with  the  life-giving  power  of  His  flesh  and 
blood."  To  this  view,  thus  placed  in  antithesis  to  that  of  our 
Church  by  Dr.  Gerhart,  we  have  many  objections,  some  of 
which,  because  of  the  antagonism  in  which  he  has  placed  the 
two  views,  we  feel  it  our  duty  to  state.  The  Reformed  view 
acknowledges  a  mystery  —  "  the  mi/Mrrious  agency  "  it  says  — 
and  so  far  concedes  tliat,  a  priori,  it  has  no  advantage  over 
acrainst  the  Lutheran  view,  on  the  general  ground  that  our  view 


THE  REFORMED   THEORY.  497 

involves  mystery.  Rising,  as  it  seems  to  us,  in  an  unconscious 
rationalism,  it  yet  concedes  that  it  cannot  bring  the  question 
into  the  sphere  of  reason  ;  it  simply  takes  it  out  of  one 
part  of  the  realm  of  mystery  to  lay  it  down  in  another.  We 
suppose  the  mystery  of  the  Supper  to  be  that  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ ;  the  Keformed  view  supposes  its  mystery  to  be 
that  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  we  dread  lest  the 
rationalizing  that  fails  to  take  the  subject  into  the  sphere  of 
reason  may  carry  the  thinker  thither,  and  that  the  Reformed 
view,  which  shifts  the  mystery,  will  run  out  into  the  Arminian 
or  Socinian  view,  which  sets  it  entirely  aside;  for  while  the 
Reformed  view  acknowledges  a  mystery,  it  is  evident  that  it 
hopes  to  find  its  account  in  the  measurable  relief  of  that  mys- 
tery. It  is  a  theory  which  seems  to  be  reluctant  to  strain  the 
text,  and  yet  has  a  bribe  for  the  reason  over  against  the  literal 
construction  of  that  text.  It  is  an  uncomfortable  thing,  for  it 
lays  more  on  the  heart  than  it  lifts  off  the  mind.  We  ol)ject 
to  it,  furthermore,  that  it  seems  to  us  to  confound  the  distinc- 
tive work  of  two  persons  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  the  distinctive 
work  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  to  redeem,  and  to  apply  His 
redemption  in  His  own  person.  It  is  the  distinctive  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  work  in  us  that  faith  which  will  savingly 
use  what  Christ  offers.  We,  no  less  than  the  Reformed,  recog- 
nize the  necessity  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  not,  however,  to  do  Christ's  work,  but  to  do  His  own. 
The  Holy  Spirit  makes  us  savingly  partakers  in  what  is  received 
by  the  outward  organs  of  the  soul.  Christ  is  intercessor  for  us 
with  the  Father,  and  so  secures  for  us  the  possibility  of  par- 
taking in  the  blessings  which  centre  in  His  person.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  intercessor  for  the  Father  and  the  Son  with  us,  and 
thus  leads  us  actually  to  accept  with  the  heart  those  most 
blessed  gifts  which  the  Father  and  Son  offer  us.  In  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Christ  gives  to  us  Himself,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
if  we  do  not  resist  His  sacred  work,  enables  us,  from  the  per- 
son of  Christ  thus  given  us,  to  draw  those  benefits  of  which 
that  person  is  the  sole  spring.  That  the  sacramental  giving 
of  Christ  is  the  work  of  His  own  person,  and  not  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  most  explicitly  taught  in  the  portions  of  the  iTew 

32 


498  COXSEnVATIVE    RE  FOR  MAT  I  ox, 

Testament  which  speak  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  That  it  is  the 
work  not  of  the  Spirit,  hut  of  Christ,  to  impart  to  us  Christ's 
hody  and  hlood  saeramentally,  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact, 
that  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted,  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  not  given  in  any  of  the  distinctive  functions  allotted  to 
Him  under  the  Xew  Dispensation.  These,  it  is  distinctly 
taught,  were  not  to  be  exercised  till  Christ  was  glorified  and 
had  gone  to  the  Father.  But  whatever  the  words  of  the  insti- 
tution mean  now%  they  meant  when  the  Supper  was  instituted. 
As  they  could  not  mean  then  that  the  Holy  Ghost  mediated 
Christ's  presence,  which,  if  it  were  done  at  all,  would  be  in  the 
highest  degree  a  work  of  the  N'ew  Dispensation,  they  cannot 
mean  it  now.  There  is  not  a  solitary  passage  in  which  the 
sacramental  impartation  of  Christ's  body  is  associated  with 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  a  true  presence  of  Christ  on 
earth  the  Reformed  view  substitutes  an  imaginary  presence  of 
the  believer  in  heaven.  The  view  seems  to  deros-ate  from  the 
personal  sufficiency  of  Christ.  It  seems  to  separate  properties 
from  the  substance  in  which  they  inhere,  to  sunder  the  efficacy 
from  the  Omnipotent  Being  who  has  that  efficacy,  to  segregate 
the  merits  of  Christ  from  His  undivided  person,  in  which  they 
were  wrought  out.  According  to  it,  Christ's  body  can  be  truly 
eaten  without  being  truly  present ;  it  is  rather  we  who  are 
communicated  to  Christ  than  He  to  us ;  the  Holy  Spirit  lifts 
us  to  heaven  ;  the  bread  which  we  break  is  the  communion  of 
our  spirit  to  Christward,  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  to  usward.  We  are  the  centre  of  the  mystery.  Christ's 
body  is  at  one  point  on  its  circumference,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
its  radius ;  the  Holy  Ghost  can  lift  us  to  the  body  of  Christ, 
but  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  cannot  bring  that  body  to  us 
—  our  ftxith,  with  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  can  do  what 
incarnate  omnipotence  cannot  do.  How  tangled  is  that  which 
promised  to  l)e  so  simple  —  how  vague  that  which  meant  to  be 
80  sharp  and  clear.  The  terminology  of  the  Reformed  view  is, 
in  the  last  degree,  perplexing,  and  wears  the  air  of  a  want  of 
candor.  If  it  be  accepted  .loosely,  it  runs  out  into  the  old 
Zwinglian  theory,  wdiich  is  also  the  view  of  a  low  Arminian- 
ism,  and  of  Rationalism.     If  it  be  accepted  rigidly,  it  is  less 


LIMBORCTI'S  JUDGMENT  OF   CALV.  DOCTRINE.     499 

intenigil)le,  even  to  reason,  than  any  other,  and  seems  to  ns, 
when  tlioronghly  sifted,  to  have,  at  some  point,  all  the  difticul- 
ties  of  all  the  other  views,  without  their  internal  harmony. 
These  weaknesses  have  been  noted  by  others  than  Lutherans. 
The  great  Remonstrant  divine,  Limborch,  whose  clearness  of 
thought,  learning,  and  gentleness,  are  deservedly  renowned, 
and  who  certainly,  as  between  the  two  views,  is  impartial 
enough,  says  of  the  Calvinistic  view :  "  It  seems  to  ,i,„borcir8ju.jK- 
have  been  invented  by  Bucer,  who,  in  his  desire  ment  of  the  cii- 

1,1,1  •!,  ^^        l^  vinistic  Doctrine. 

for  peace,  m  order  that  he  might  reconcile  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Zwinglians,  devised  ambiguous  expres- 
sions, which  both  sides  might  subscribe,  without  changing 
their  opinion.  But  the  attempt  was  a  failure.  The  Lutherans 
complained  of  the  deceitful  dealing  of  the  Reformed,  who  took 
back  with  one  hand  what  they  gave  with  the  other.  .  .  The 
Reformed  held  that  in  the  Supper  there  is  a  communion  with 
the  physical  substance  of  Christ's  body,  which  they  teach  is 
there  tndy^  though  not  substantially  present.  But  the  doc- 
trine involves  no  less  an  absiLrdity  than  that  of  the  Lutherans. 
For  that  communion  with  the  substance  of  Christ's  body  is 
either  a  communion  with  the  body  of  Christ  as  it  remains  in 
heaven,  or  as  it  is  verily  present  on  earth,  and  in  the  use  of  the 
Supper.  If  they  say  the  latter,  they  must  admit  the  ubiquity 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  go  over  openly  to  the  camp  of  the 
Lutherans.  If  they  say  the  former,  they  affirm  contradictory 
things  ;  for  how  is  it  possible  that  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is 
in  heaven,  and  nowhere  else  (as  Beza  says),  should  be  truly 
communicated  and  be  food  to  us  who  are  on  earth,  and  nowhere 
else?  They  say:  Our  conjunction  with  the  body  of  Christ  is 
made  as  by  a  spiritual  mouth  through  faith,  by  which  we  can 
render  present  to  us  many  things  w^iich  are  absent.  We 
answer :  1.  The  conjunction,  through  faith,  with  Christ,  ouglit 
to  precede  the  use  of  the  Supper ;  otherwise  the  man  is 
unworthy  who  celebrates  the  Supper  ;  for  by  the  celebration 
of  it  he  testifies  that  he  already  has  that  communion.  2.  That 
union  which  takes  place  through  faith  they  expressly  distin- 
guish from  the  union  which  takes  place  in  the  Supper,  which 
latter  they  would  have  to  embrace  something  more  sublime 


500  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  express.  3.  The  union  bj  faith  is  not  incomprehensible. 
4.  Xor  does  fiiith  really  render  present  things  which  are 
absent,  but  only  represents  them  to  itself  as  if  they  were  pres- 
ent, though  they  are  actually  absent,  for  it  is  '  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for.'  Heb.  xi.  1.  Moreover :  5.  Our  soul  can  receive 
no  spiritual  fruit  from  communion  with  the  very  substance  of 
the  physical  body  and  blood  of  Christ.''* 

Calvinism  is  forced  to  admit  that  its  view  does  not  solve  the 
mystery  after  all,  but  leaves  it  in  its  fathomless  depth.  It 
requires  Christ's  person,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  faith  of 
the  believer,  —  thjee  factors,  confusing  each  other.  The  first 
factor  is  sufficient,  and  if  justice  is  done  it,  the  other  two  are 
not  needed  for  the  objective  substance  of  the  Sacrament ;  they 
come  in  at  their  proper  place,  not  to  help  Christ  to  make  what 
He  has  perfectly  made  already,  but  to  enable  the  recipient 
to  receive  savingly  what  he  is  receiving  sacramentally.  Tlve 
Calvinistic  view  puts  too  much  upon  man,  who  is  nothing, 
because  it  concedes  too  little  to  Christ,  who  is  everything. 
There  is  more  than  wit,  there  is  solemn  argument  in  the  illus- 
tration of  a  great  old  divine:  "  When  Christ  says,  'Behold,  I 
stand  at  the  door  and  knock :  if  any  man  hear  my  voice,  aicd 
open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  will  sup  with  him, 
and  he  with  me,'  a  Calvinist  might  answer,  0  Lord,  there  is 
no  need  for  you  to  wait  so  long  at  the  door.  'Eeturn  to  yonr 
heaven,  and  when  I  wish  to  sup  with  you,  I  will  fly  up  with 
my  wings  of  faith,  and  meet  you  there. "f  With  its  great 
advance  upon  the  rationalism  of  Zwingli,  the  doctrine  of  Cal- 
vin still  bore  with  it  the  fatal  taint  of  the  very  view  which  he 
calls  "  profane.''  All  that  he  gained  in  depth,  as  contrasted 
with  Zwingli,  he  lost  in  clearness.  He  does  not  as  flatly  as 
Zwingli  contradict  the  text,  but  he  does  what  Zwitigli  did  not, 
he  contradicts  himself.  But  two  views  will  remain  in  the  ulti- 
mate struggle,  the  rationalistic,  Zwinglian,  Arminian,  Sociuian 
view,  which  fully  and  consistently  denies  the  whole  mystery, 
on  the  one  side,  and  the   Scriptural,  Catholic  view,  which 

*Theologia  Christijina.  Ed.  Tcrt.  Amstclt«d.   1700.   Fol.   Lib.  V.  cli.  Ixxi. 
fDannluiuer:    rveforniirtcn    Snlve.    u.   Friedens-Gruys,    quoted    iu    Scherzer  • 
Collegium  Anti-Ciilviniunum.   Lipsiie.   17U4.  4to.  603. 


LUTIL   DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.      501 

fully  and  consistently  recognizes  it  on  the  other.  This  is 
the  view  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  presence  held  in  its 
purity  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  held  in  the  Roman  and 
Greek  Churches,  though  with  the  rubbish  of  human  addi- 
tions heaped  on  it.  The  advance  of  either  view  presses  out  the 
Calvinistic  —  and  both  views  are  advancing.  In  some  parts 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  as  in  the  Church  of  England,  the 
Episcopal  Church,  and  the  German  Reformed  Church,  the 
Catholic  view  is  more  and  more  in  the  ascendant.  In  other 
parts  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  the  Zwinglian  view  has  long 
since  so  completely  triumphed  over  the  Calvinistic,  that  men 
who  imagine  themselves  defenders  of  the  purest  Calvinism, 
reject  contemptuously  its  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Supper. 
Calvinism  has  really  at  least  six  points.  Its  most  ardent 
defenders  usually  think  it  enough  to  maintain  five. -  In  their 
dropping  of  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  if  we  deny 
their  consistency,  we  cannot  but  praise  their  sagacity.  The 
rigid  logic  wdiich  so  w^onderfully  marks  Calvin,  in  the  other 
parts  of  his  system,  seems  to  fail  him  here,  and  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  the  Churches  w^hich  maintain  the  views  of  that 
masterly  thinker  on  almost  every  other  point,  have  either  posi- 
tively rejected,  or  quietly  practically  ignored  his  sacramental 
theories,  which  were,  indeed,  but  an  adaptation  of  the  views 
of  Bucer,  which  their  originator  ultimately  abandoned  for  those 
of  the  Lutheran  Church.  They  were  grafted  on  Calvin's  sys- 
tem, not  grown  by  it,  and  they  fall  away  even  when  the  trunk 
retains  its  original  vigor,  or  are  retained,  as  the  Unionistic 
theology,  though  with  great  changes,  now  retains  them, 
when  everything,  ordinarily  embraced  in  Calvinism,  is  utterly 
abandoned. 

Our  object  in  this  dissertation  is  by  no  means  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Church,  ^he  Lutheran 
We  have  touched  upon  them  only  so  far  as  Dr.  J'^^;*^';^;^"^'^;;; 
Gerhart  has  thought  it  necessary  to  bring  them  a  scriptural  doc- 
into  a  disparaging  contrast  with  the  faith  of  our 
Church — in  a  word,  w^e  have  had  no  desire  to  attack  them, 
but  simply  to  defend  ourselves.  We  have  dwelt  upon  the  two 
great  doctrines  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 


502  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

per,  "because  these  doctrines  are  of  the  highest  importance,  are 
vitally  connected,  and  have  heen  most  frequently  misunder- 
stood. The  pure  truth  in  regard  to  these  grand  themes,  as 
our  Church  holds  it,  is  one  of  her  highest  glories,  and  she 
must  he  forgiven  if  she  is  unwilling  that  any  man  should  take 
from  her  her  crown. 

Dr.  Gerhart,  in  the  paragraph  which  follows  the  one  on 
which  we  have  been  dwelling,  goes  on  to  say :  "  The  Lutheran 
Antithesis,  (that  is,  in  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ,)  was 
developed  from  the  Lutheran  theory  of  the  Sacrament."  If 
Dr.  Gerhart  means  no  more  than  that  God  in  His  Providence 
made  the  discussions  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  the  means 
of  bringing  more  fully  and  harmoniously  into  a  well-defined 
consciousness,  and  into  clearer  expression  the  doctrine  of  the 
Scriptures  in  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ,  we  do  not  object 
to  it ;  but  if  he  means  that  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  the 
person  of  Christ  originated  in  the  necessity  of  defending  her 
doctrine  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  think  he  is  wholly 
mistaken.  The  doctrine  of  our  Church  rests  upon  the  direct 
testimony  of  God's  Word,  and  her  interpretation  of  the  mean- 
ing of  that  Word  is  not  one  of  her  own  devising,  but  had  been 
given  ages  before  her  great  distinctive  Confession,  by  the 
Fathers  and  Councils  of  the  pure  Church.  We  offer  to  our 
readers  some  testimony  on  both  these  points. 

John   taught  the   doctrine   of  Christ's   person  which    our 

I.  All  things  are  Church    coufcsscs,  whcn   he   said    (John   xiii.    3), 

given  to  Jesus  u  jgg^g  knowing:   that   the  Father   had  given  all 

according  to  Ilis  ^  t       i  tt 

hnnmn  nature,  thiugs  iuto  Ilis  hauds,  aud  that  lie  was  come 
John  xiii.  3.  ^j,^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^,^^^^  ^^  Q^^l .  jjg  Yi^Qih.  from  sup- 
per .  .  .  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet." 

1.  These  words  teach  us  what  Jesus  had:  "All  things." 
So  in  John  iii.  35  :  ''  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath 
given  ALL  THINGS  into  His  hand."  So  in  Matt.  xi.  27,  and 
Luke  X.  22:  ''All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my 
Father."  What  a  plenitude  of  possession  is  here  involved,  and 
what  supernatural  characteristics  of  person  are  necessary  to 
their  reception.  Unlimited  possession  involves  supreme  power 
—  and  he  cannot  he  omnipotent  who  is  not  omnipresent.    The 


ALL   THINGS  ARE   GIVEN  TO    CHRIST.  503 

Lutheran  need  not  fear  to  attribute  too  much  to  his  adorable 
Saviour  when  God  himself  gives  to  Ilim  "all  things." 

2.  In  these  words  of  John  is  implied  that  Christ,  according 
TO  HIS  HUMAN  NATURE,  has  all  things.  The  name  Jesus  is  not  a 
name  drawn  from  His  divine  nature,  but  was  given  to  Ilim  in 
His  individuality  after  His  incarnation.  The  text  says,  more- 
over, that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  His  hand.  Xow, 
according  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  God  can  give  Ilim 
nothing,  for  that  divine  nature  in  its  own  essence  has  all 
things  absolutely.  Hence,  here,  and  everywhere  that  God  is 
said  to  give  Christ  anything,  or  Christ  is  said  to  receive  any- 
thing, it  is  given  to  Him  according  to  His  human  nature.,  and 
received  by  Him  according  to  His  human  nature.  Christ,  then, 
has  received  according  to  the  one  nature,  to  wit,  the  human, 
what  He  intrinsically  possessed  in  the  other,  to  wit,  in  the 
divine,  or,  as  it  has  been  expressed.  Whatever  Christ  has  in 
the  one  nature  by  essence.  He  partakes  of  in  the  other  by  grace 
—  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church. 

3.  The  whole  point  of  John's  antithesis,  indeed,  turns  upon 
this  view  of  the  person  of  Christ ;  for  his  vein  of  thought  is 
evidently  this  —  that  Jesus  performed  this  act  of  touchino- 
lowliness,  the  washing  of  His  disciples'  feet,  the  act  of  a  ser- 
vant, not  in  forgetfulness  of  His  glorious  majesty,  and  of  the 
plenitude  of  His  gifts,  but  fully  conscious  of  them.  Thongh 
He  knew  His  own  supreme  glory  as  the  one  to  w^hom  the 
Father  had  given  all  things,  He  yet  girded  Himself,  and  bent 
to  wash  the  feet  of  His  loved  ones.  iN'ow,  if  He  had  all  things 
only  according  to  the  divine  nature,  there  was  no  humiliation 
involved,  for  according  to  the  nature  which  had  the  glory.  He 
did  not  wash  their  feet  — but  as,  confessedly,  it  w^as  according  to 
His  human  nature,  bending  His  human  form,  and  using  His 
human  hands  to  wash  their  feet,  so  must  it  have  been  accord- 
ing to  that  nature  that  He  here  humiliated  Himself;  and  the 
point  is,  that  though  as  a  man  He  had  given  into  His  hands 
all  things,  and  was  thus  as  man  infinitely  glorious,  yet  as 
man,  and  in  full  consciousness  of  the  glor}^  which  He  shared  as 
man.  He  humbled  Himself  to  wash  His  disciples'  feet. 

That  the  expressions  which  attribute  the  plenary  possession 


504  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

of  ALL  THINGS  to  Jesus  accordiiig  to  His  human  nature,  are 
not  to  be  deprived  of  the  very  fullest  significance,  becomes  yet 
more  clear  when  we  look  at  the  passages  which  specify  in 
detail  what  are  some  of  the  things,  "  all  "  of  which  the 
ii.josusisom-  Father  has  delivered  to  Him.  Our  blessed  Lord 
nipotent  accord-  g^yg  f^j.  examplc  (Matt,  xxvlli.  18) :  "  All  power 

iug  to  His  human     .     "^   .  ^       i  i  i     v       t^- 

nature.  Matt.  IS  givcu  uuto  mc  m  hcavcu  and  on  earth.  '  JNow 
xxTin.18.  mark  of  whom  this  affirmation  is  made.    It  is  made 

of  One  who  stood  before  them  confessedly  a  true  man,  coming 
with  the  step  of  man,  speaking  through  the  lips  of  man,  with 
the  voice  of  man,  and  saying:  "All  power  is  given  unto  ?ne." 
Surel}^,  if  He  had  meant  that  His  human  nature  was  to  be 
excluded  from  this  personality  He  would  have  told  His  disci- 
ples so,  for  nothing  could  seem  more  clear  than  that  the  undi- 
vided Christ,  the  man  as  well  as  the  God,  affirmed  this  of  Him- 
self But  it  is  furthermore  manifest  that  what  Christ  here  says, 
He  says  by  preeminence  of  the  human  side  of  His  person,  for 
He  says :  "  All  power  is  glveJi  unto  me,"  but  to  His  divine 
nature,  in  its  essence,  nothing  could  be  given.  In  virtue  of  that 
essence,  it  was  necessarily  omnipotent.  Supreme  power,  there- 
fore, was  conferred  on  the  Mediator  as  to  His  human  nature. 
And  yet  there  could  not  be  two  omnipotences  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  the  one  belonging  to  His  divinity,  the  other  to  His 
humanity.  The  divine  did  not  part  with  its  omnipotence  to 
the  human,  so  that  the  divine  now  ceased  to  be  omnipotent,  and 
the  human  became  in  its  own  essence  omnipotent.  This  would 
involve  that  the  Godhead  really  ceased  to  be  divine,  and  the 
human  became  essentially  divine  —  both  of  which  are  absurd. 
As  the  Godhead,  therefore,  retains  its  essential  omnipotence, 
and  yet  the  human  receives  omnipotence  as  a  gift,  the  result 
is  inevitable.  The  one  omnipotence  pertains  to  the  w^hole  per- 
son—  the  divine  possessing  it  essentially  and  of  necessity,  and 
in  itself;  the  human  having  a  communion  or  participation 
in  it,  in  virtue  of  its  personal  union  with  the  divine.  Omnip- 
otence becomes  no  essential  attribute  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  but  inheres  forever  in  the  divine,  and  is  exercised  by 
the  liuman  only  because  it  is  taken  into  the  one  person  of  the 
divine. 


JESUS  IS   OMNIPOTENT.  505 

This  power  which  is  given  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is 
supreme  —  "  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;  "  it  is  all-compre- 
hending, involving  every  kind  of  power  throughout  the  uni- 
verse. It  is  a  true  omnipotence.  To  have  all  power,  implies 
that  the  power  shall  be  everywhere  —  but  the  power  is  not 
separable  from  presence  of  some  kind.  If  the  Saviour  is 
almight}^  everywhere.  He  must  exercise  that  omnipotence 
directly  in  His  own  person,  or  through  a  secondary  agency  — 
but  as  His  person  is  a  divine  one.  He  needs  no  secondary 
agency,  the  very  same  person  that  is  mighty  to  all  things  is 
present  to  be  mighty.  Yet,  as  if  no  conjecture,  however  direct 
or  irresistible,  might  be  the  ground  of  our  hope.  He  closes  His 
glorious  address  to  His  disciples  with  the  words :  "  Lo  !  I  am 
with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.''  He  who 
uttered  the  promise  fulfils  it,  but  He  who  uttered  it  was  man 
as  well  as  God  —  and  in  fulfilling  it.  He  fulfilled  it  as  man  as 
well  as  God.  So  irresistible  is  the  necessity  for  this  view,  that 
writers  who  are  not  of  the  Lutheran  Church  have  acknowl- 
edged it.  Alford,  for  example,  commenting  on  the  words, 
Matt,  xxviii.  20 :  "  Lo !  I  am  with  you,"  says,  "- 1,"  in  the  fullest 
sense :  "  not  the  divine  presence^  as  distinguished  from  the  human- 
ity of  Christ.  His  humanity  is  with  us  likewise.  The  pres- 
ence of  the  Spirit  is  the  effect  of  the  presence  of  Christ."  But 
inference  is  hardly  necessary.  The  power  of  omnipresence  is 
a  part  of  all  power. 

In  Matt.  xi.  27,  Christ  defines  the  sphere  of  His  possession. 
He  has  ''  all  things  "  without  exception  ;  He  indicates  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  are  derived :  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto 
me,"  possessing  them  from  eternity  as  God,  I  have  received 
them  in  time  as  man  ;  He  marks  the  person  of  the  recipient : 
"  All  things  are  delivered  unto  ?m^,"  the  one  divine-human  per- 
son, whose  natures  form  one  inseparable  person  ;  He  draws  the 
inference:  "Come,"  therefore,  "unto  me^'^ — the  inseparably 
divine  and  human  —  "all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  /will  give  you  rest."  This  one  person,  inseparably  hnman 
and  divine,  calls  to  Him  the  sorrowing  of  every  place  and  of 
every  time,  and  promises  in  His  own  person,  man  as  well  as 
God,  everywhere  and  evermore  to  give  them  rest.     And  there 


606  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

is  no  meaning,  and  no  comfort  in  an  incarnate  Christ  wliicK 
does  not  rest  in  the  conviction  that  He  is  approached  and 
approaches  hoth  as  man  and  as  God. 

In  Jolin  xvii.  5,  our  Lord  says  :  "  And  now,  0  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which 
id?ntitT"of  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was." 
Christ's  person.  jj^  ^]^jg  ^^xt  is  implied,  1.  That  the  person  of 
johuxvn.5.  Qj^j.-g^  -g  ^^-^^-^^g  _  His  glory  is  a  common  glory 
with  that  of  the  Father  ;  "  with  thine  own  self,"  "  with  thee  ;" 
and  like  the  Father's,  it  is  from  eternity,  before  the  world,  that 
is,  the  creation,  either  in  whole  or  in  part  "was."  It  is 
implied,  2.  That  the  human  nature  is  taken  into  the  unity  of 
this  divine  person.  For  Christ,  true  man,  speaks  of  a  glory 
which  He  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  The 
identity  of  person  is  involved  throughout.  The  same  person 
who  was  then  incarnate,  was  once  unincarnate ;  the  same  per- 
son which  Avas  simply  and  unchangeably  glorious  in  its  essence, 
was  now  humbled  according  to  the  nature  which  it  had 
assumed  into  its  personality.  It  is  implied,  3.  That  there  is  a 
true  communion  of  properties,  for  we  have  Christ  praying 
according  to  His  human  nature,  that  the  Father  may  glorify 
Him  according  to  that  nature.  According  to  His  divine 
nature  He  could  not  pray,  nor  have  anything  given  to  Him. 
Ilis  prayer,  then,  means  that  He  desires  to  be  glorified  accord- 
ing to  His  human  nature,  as  He  had  been  glorified  in  His  divine 
nature  before  the  Avorld  was.  And  this  glory  is  not  declara- 
tive, but  essential,  for  it  is  a  glory  which  He  had  antecedent 
to  the  creation  with  the  Father  Himself,  not  with  angels,  but 
before  the  world  of  men  and  angels  had  being.  But  even  if  it 
were  declarative  glory,  all  real  declarative  glory  presupposes 
essential  perfection.  Our  Saviour,  then,  prays  that  the  plenary 
exercise  of  the  attributes,  and  the  plenary  enjoyment  of  the 
majesty  which  belonged  to  Him  as  God,  may  be  shared  in  by 
His  human  nature. 

In  Colossians  ii.  9,  it  is  said:  "In  Him  [Christ]  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily."  The  "  fulness  of  the  God- 
head "  is  wholly  diiferent  from  the  "fulness  of  God."  The 
"  fulness  of  God  "  is  that  fulness  of  gifts  and  graces  which 


THE  DOCTRINE  IMPLIED.  507 

God  imparts,  and  which  believers  have  from  Ilim.  The  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  is  the  plenitude  of  the  divine  nature  in 
all  its  attributes.  This  is  here  intensified  by  the  word  "  all :'' 
"  all  the  fulness."  The  Godhead  is  incarnate  through  the  second 
person  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  whole  second  person 

■t^  .  ...  'l''^     Godhead 

of  the  Trinity  dwells  in  Christ's  humanity,  which  it  dwelling  in 
has  united  to  itself  as  its  own  body.  All  the  fulness  "^'^  ,^  '^"'^"^'• 
of  the  Godhead  cannot  jjcrsonally  dwell  in  Christ 
and  also  personally  be  separate  from  Christ,  for  personality 
implies  not  simply  presence,  but  far  more  ;  it  involves  the  most 
absolute  union.  If  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  in  the  second 
person  of  the  Trinity  dwells  in  Christ  bodily,  then  there  is  no 
fulness  of  that  Godhead  where  it  is  not  so  dwelling  in  Christ ; 
and  as  the  human  in  Christ  cannot  limit  the  divine,  which  is 
essentially,  and  of  necessity,  omnipresent,  the  divine  in  Christ 
must  exalt  the  human.  The  Goahead  of  Christ  is  everywhere 
present,  and  wherever  present,  dwells  in  fche  human  personally, 
and,  therefore,  of  necessity  renders  it  present  with  itself. 

So  thoroughly  does  this  idea  of  the  personal  unity  underlie 
the  l!^ew  Testament  conception  of  Christ,  that  we  ^j^^  Doctrine 
find  it  constantly  assumed  where  no  formal  state-  inipned    where 

.  -  ,—  ,  t»    i  1   •  there  is  no  formal 

ment  of  it  is  made.     Iwo  examples  oi  this  may  statement.  Matt. 

Sufiice.  xvii.25;xii.8. 

When  (Matt.  xvii.  25)  our  Lord  claimed,  as  man,  the  exemp- 
tion from  the  duty  of  paying  the  Temple-tax,  on  the  ground 
that  He  had  the  receiving  right  of  royalty,  and  was  exempt 
from  the  paying  duty  of  the  subject,  it  implied  that  His 
humanity  was  in  such  unity  with  His  Godhead,  that  He  could 
argue  from  the  one  to  the  other.  If  there  were  two  persons, 
He  must  have  argued :  My  Godhead  is  exempt,  but  my 
humanity  is  bound  to  the  payment.  But  His  argument  is 
the  very  reverse  :  I  am  not  bound  as  God,  therefore  I  am  not 
bound  as  man ;  the  logical  link,  of  necessity,  being :  Because 
my  Godhead  has  taken  my  humanity  into  personal  unity  with 
it.  But  if  Christ  participates  in  divine  rights  according  to 
His  humanity.  He  must  participate  in  the  divine  attributes 
which  condition  those  rights.  This  is  the  presupposition  of 
that.     That  is  the  result  c>f  this. 


508  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

"  The  Son  of  man  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath-day,"  (>ratt. 
xii.  8  ;  :Mark  ii.  28  ;  Luke  vi.  5,)  that  is,  He  has  the  dispensing 
power  of  the  Law-giver  in  regard  to  the  ceremonial  law.  But 
this  He  cannot  have  as  Son  of  man,  unless  as  Son  of  man  He 
has  a  personal  identity  with  the  Son  of  God. 

These  texts  are  but  a  little  part  of  the  testimony  which 
might  be  cited.    Tbe  faith  of  our  Church  grounded 

JZ^i^  ^PO^^  ^^^^"^  ^^^^^  ^^^"  ^^^^  ^^^*^'    ^^  ^^'^  Universal 
not  novel.  Views  Qhurcli  for  as^cs.     Tlic  carllcst  ages  of  the  Church 

of  tbe  Fathers.  .-.^t  ittt  j*  ••  j? 

are  not,  indeed,  marked  by  dogmatic  precision  ot 
lano-uao-e.  The  sciolist  who  is  not  deeply  read  into  their  testi- 
mony  is  sure  to  misunderstand  it,  and  in  any  case  it  is  neces- 
sary to  allow  for  lax  phraseology  and  defective  thinking.  ISTo 
existing  system  can  find  a  perfect  guaranty  in  the  exact  terms 
used  by  the  ancient  Church.  Its  testimony  is  to  be  construed 
on  broader  principles  than  those  of  a  mousing  verbal  criticism. 
We  must  read  the  life  of  the  ancient  Church  before  we  can 
comprehend  its  letter  —  and  its  letter,  construed  by  its  life, 
shows,  with  ever-increasing  clearness,  the  underlying  Christo- 
logical  system  wdiich  reached  its  scientific  perfection  in  the 
theology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  developed  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  The  Church  all  along  was  feeling  after 
an  adequate  confession  of  her  faith  in  regard  to  the  insepara- 
ble unity  of  the  person  of  her  Lord.  Epiphanius  had  said : 
"  The  flesh  acquired  the  glory  of  Deity,  a  heavenly  honor, 
glory,  and  perfection,  which  it  had  not  from  the  beginning, 
but  received  it  in  its  union  with  God  the  Word."  Cyril  had 
said :  "  The  Word  had  made  common  with  its  own  body  the 
good  of  its  own  nature."  "  As  the  Word  is  of  God,  so  is  the 
man  of  the  woman  —  there  is,  therefore,  of  both  one  Christ, 
indivisible  in  Sonship,  and  in  divine  majesty."*  Theodoret 
had  said :  "  The  nature  assumed  for  us  was  participant  of  the 
same  honor  with  that  which  assumed  it."  Damascenus  had 
said  :  "  The  divine  nature  communicates  its  own  excellencies 
to  the  flesh.    The  divine  works  are  wrought  through  the  body 

*  Cyril  in  Joan.  L.  II.  ch.  xlix.  Cyril  means  that  the  humanity  of  Christ,  "man,' 
is  (Icriveil  from  his  mother,  "  woman,"  as  his  divine  nature,  "  Word,"  is  begotten 
of  the  Father  from  eternity. 


VIEWS   OF  THE  FATHERS.  509 

as  their  organ."  Atiianasius  had  said  :  "  AV^hatevcr  the  Scrip- 
ture declares  that  Christ  had  received  in  time,  it  atiirnis  with 
reference  to  His  humanity,  not  with  reference  to  His  deity." 
Basil  the  Great  had  said  :  "  A\^hen  it  is  decUired  hy  our  Lord : 
'  All  power  is  given  unto  me,'  the  words  are  to  he  understood 
of  Him  in  His  incarnation,  not  in  His  Deity."  "  As  the  Son 
of  God  has  heen  made  participant  of  Hesh  and  hlood,  so  the 
human  flesh  of  our  Lord  has  heen  made  participant  of  Deity."* 
Ambrose  had  said :  "  All  things  are  suhject  to  Him  according 
to  His  flesh.  Christ,  according  to  His  humanity,  shares  the 
throne  of  God."  "  Thou  art  everywhere  (uhique),  and  stand- 
ing in  our  midst  art  not  perceived  by  us."  "  One  Christ  is  every- 
where (uhique) ;  here  existing  complete  (plenus),  and  there 
complete." t  Chrysostom  had  said:  ''The  angels  are  com- 
manded to  adore  Him  according  to  the  flesh."  "  Christ  is 
beyond  the  heavens,  He  is  beyond  the  earth.  He  is  wherever 
He  wills  to  be  ;  wheresoever  He  is.  He  is  entire  ;  wheresoever 
He  is,  and  wheresoever  thou  art  who  seekest  Him,  thou  art 
in  Him  whom  thou  seekest.":]:  Theophylact  had  said  :  "The 
Father  hath  given  all  things  into  the  hand  of  the  Son  accord- 
ing to  His  humanity."  "  He  fills  all  things  with  His  rule  and 
working,  and  this  He  does  in  His  flesh,  for  He  had  filled  all 
things  before  with  His  divinity.  "§  "  The  holy  body  of  Christ 
.  .  is  communicated  in  the  four  parts  of  the  world.  .  .  He 
sanctifies  the  soul  of  each  with  His  body,  through  His  flesh, 
and  exists  entire  and  undivided  in  all  everywhere."  1  OEcume- 
Nius  had  said :  "He  received  as  man  what  He  had  as  God. 
As  man  it  was  said  to  Him :  '  Sit  at  my  right  hand,'  for  as 
God  he  had  an  eternal  government."  "  By  His  divinity  He  had 
aforetime  filled  all  things,  but  being  incarnate  He  descended 
and  ascended,  that  with  His  flesh  He  might  fill  all  things."  If 
Jerome**  had  said:   "The   Lamb  is   everywhere   (uhique)." 

•'^Basilius  in  Homil.  de  Nativ.  Christi. 

I  Anibrosius  on  Luke  x.  Lib.  vii.  ch.  47,  and  on  Heb.  iv. 

J  Horn,  de  John  Bapt. 

g  Theophylact  on  Eph.  iv.  10. 

II  In  cap.  xix.  John. 

^(Ecumenius  on  Eph.  iv.  10. 

^*  Adv.  Vigilantium. 


510  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Augustine  had  said  :  "  The  humanity  itself  after  the  resiirrec- 
tion  ohtained  divine  glory."  "'The  Son  of  man  which  is  in 
heaven.'  He  was  on  earth,  and  yet  said  that  He  is  in  heaven 
—  and  what  is  more,  that  '  the  Son  of  man  is  in  heaven,'  that 
He  might  demonstrate  that  there  is  one  person  in  two  natures. 
.  .  There  are  not  two  Christs,  two  Sons  of  God,  but  one  per- 
son, one  Christ."  "Why  shouldst  thou  separate  man  from 
God,  and  make  one  person  of  God,  another  of  man,  so  that 
there  would  he,  not  a  Trinity,  but  a  Quaternity  —  for  thou,  a 
man,  art  soul  and  body,  and  as  soul  and  body  is  one  man, 
so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ  ?  "*  The  Church  grounds 
herself,  then,  in  this  great  doctrine,  on  the  direct  testimony 
of  God's  Word,  accepted  in  the  sense  in  which  it  had  long 
been  understood  by  the  best  interpreters  of  the  Ancient 
Church. 

So  irresistible,  indeed,  is  the  logic  of  the  case,  and  so  strong 
is  the  historical  testimony  by  which  the  argument  is  sustained, 
that  we  find  the  truth  conceded  in  whole  or  in  part  by  some 
of  the  ablest  representatives  of  the  Churches  which  have  most 
violently  opposed  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ.  Bellarmine,  and  other  Polemics  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  the  blindness  of  their  purpose  to  stamp  our  doc- 
trine with  the  reproach  of  heresy,  have  violently  assailed  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  personal  omnipresence  of  Christ 
according  to  both  natures.  But,  in  addition  to  the  Fathers, 
Lutheran  doc-  mcu  whose  uamcs  have  been  held  in  honor  in  that 
trine;  1.  Admis-  Qj^^rch  at  a  later  period   have  acknowledged,  in 

Bions  of  some  wri-  ■*■  •    j  i 

ters  of  the  Church  whole  or  part,  what  modern  Komamsts  deny, 
of  Rome.  HuGO  DE  S.  ViCTORE  f  says :  "From  the  nature  of 

its  union  with  divinity,  the  body  of  Christ  has  this  dignity,  that 
it  is  at  one  time  in  many  places."  Biel  :j:  says :  "  l^ot  only  can  the 
body  of  Christ  be  in  diverse  places  definitively  and  sacramentally, 
but .  .  can  by  divine  power  be  in  many  places  circumscriptively." 
Kor  have  there  been  entirely  wanting,  even  among  modern 
Romanists,  some  who  have  conceded  the  truth  of  the  Lutheran 

*  Augustine:   Dc  verb.  Apostol.  Serra.  xiv.;   Do.  De  Tempore.   Serm.  cxlvii. 
f  Lib.  II.  de  Sacram.  Pars  viii.  ch.  xii. 
X  IV.  Sent.  Dist.  xi. 


ADMISSIONS   OF  CALVIXISTIC   WRITERS.        511 

doctrine  of  the  fellowship  of  properties.  Faber  Stapulensis 
says  :  "  Wherever  Christ  is,  He  is  incarnate.  But  without  His 
body  He  is  not  incarnate.  That  is  a  great  faith  which  knows 
that  Christ  is  hodily  wliere  He  is  sacramentally.  3>ut  that  is 
a  greater  faith  that  knows  that  He  is  absolutely  everywhere 
bodily."  "The  body  of  Christ  is  wherever  the  Logos  is,  for 
*  the  Word  w^as  made  flesh.'  The  Word  is  never  without  the 
flesh,  nor  the  flesh  without  the  Word."*  Paul  Kemer  aflirms : 
"  It  is  most  easy,  by  many  and  firm  reasons,  to  prove  that  Christ 
is  everywhere  with  His  body,"  and  so  also  Ertlius,  Francus, 
and  BARRADius.f 

BiEL  held,  indeed,  in  common  w^th  many  of  the  scho- 
lastics, that  by  divine  power  any  natural  body  2.  Admissions  of 
could  be  simultaneously  present  in  many  places,  ^^''t'^phy^^'c'^"^- 
Nor  has  this  theory  lacked  supporters  of  great  name  in  modern 
times.  Among  the  Calvinistic  metaphysicians,  the  proposition 
that  "  the  existence  of  one  and  the  same  body  in  many  places  is 
not  contradictory,"  has  been  maintained  by  Gisbert  Yoetius, 
and  defended  by  his  sons,  Paul  and  Daniel.  Leibnitz,:J:  the 
greatest  metaphysician,  in  many  respects,  since  Aristotle,  says 
that  it  cannot  w^ith  reason  be  aflftrmed  that  a  real  presence  of  the 
body  of  Christ  in  many  places  involves  a  contradiction,  inasmuch 
as  no  one  has  yet  explained  in  what  the  essence  of  body  consists. 
This  theory,  maintained,  as  it  has  been,  by  some  of  the 
acutest  thinkers  of  our  race,  shows,  at  least,  that  here  is  a 
question  which  cannot  be  determined  by  mere  speculation. 

!N"or  are  we  destitute  of  admissions,  on  the  part  of  Calvinistic 
writers,  which,  in  spite  of  the  explanations  wdiich     „    . ,  .  . 

'■'■'■  -•-  ^3.    Admissions 

seem  meant  to  take  away  with  one  hand  what  is  of     caiviuietic 
granted   by  the  other,  are  virtual  concessions  of    ''■"^'''■''• 
the  truth  of  the  Lutheran  view.     Thus  Beza  §  says  :  "  If  you 
will,  I  grant  beside,  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  also  pres- 
ent, but  in   another   respect,  that  is,  not  in  itself,  or  by  its 

*  Faber  Stap.  in  1  Cor.  xii. 
f  Quoted  in  Gerhard's  Loci  (Cotta).  iii.  517. 

J  See  Letters  of  Leibnitz  and  Pelisson,  and  L.'s  Discours  d.  1.  Conform,  de  la 
fois  avec  la  raison,  ^  18,  and  Cotta's  Note  on  Gerhard,  iv.  548. 
2  Opera.  659. 


512  CONSERVATIVE    RE  FOR  MAT  I  OK 

own  essence,  but  inasfar  as  it  coheres  hy  personal  union  with 
the  Logos,  which  is  every wliere."  Zanchius*:  "The  flesh  of 
Christ  can  be  said  to  be  .  .  omnipotent,  .  .  everywhere  present 
.  .  not  in  its  own  proper  essence,  .  .  but  in  the  person  which 
is  common  to  it,  with  the  divine  nature."  "All  the  learned 
and  pious  grant  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  personally 
omnipotent,  everywliere  present.  Xot  incongruously  is  it  said 
that  the  flesh  is  personally  omnipotent  and  everywhere  present, 
.  .  for  it  is  such  in  the  person."  The  Zurich  Theologians f 
say :  "  Christ,  that  is,  that  person  who  is  at  the  same  time 
true  God  and  true  man,  is  present  with  all  things,  governs 
heaven  and  earth,  and  that  according  to  each  nature  (utramque 
naturam).  For  the  Son  of  God,  after  He  assumed  human 
nature,  wheresoever  He  is  present  and  acts,  is  present  and  acts 
as  Christ,  that  is,  as  a  person  who  is  at  once  God  and  man." 
SoHXius  :  "  If  the  humanity  is  not  wherever  the  divinity  is,  to 
wit,  personally,  or  in  personal  subsistence,  that  is,  if  there  be 
not  everywhere  one  person  of  the  two  natures,  or  if  these  two 
natures  be  not  everywhere  united,  there  must,  of  necessity,  be 
two  persons."  That  these  writers  are  consistent  with  these 
premises,  in  their  inferences,  we  do  not  pretend ;  but  this 
does  but  the  more  show  how  great  is  the  pressure  of  that 
truth,  which,  knowing  the  difiiculty  of  explaining  it  away, 
they  are  yet  obliged  to  concede. 

In  the  great  practical  question  of  the  undivided  adoration 
Worship  of  of  the  humanity  and  Deity  of  Christ,  there  is  no 
ist  according  (jonsistcut  Dositiou  between  the  Lutheran  doctrine 

Ili-s     liunian  ^ 

and  the  Socinian.  The  Calvinistic  divines,  while 
they  show  in  various  ways  that  there  is  great  difliculty  in  har- 
monizing their  view  of  the  person  of  Christ  with  the  worship  of 
Him  in  His  human  nature,  are  yet,  for  the  most  part,  happily 
inconsistent,  ^o  man  can  really  pray  to  the  undivided  Christ 
without  in  heart  resting  on  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  His  per- 
son. Either  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  in  inseparable  unity 
of  person  with  the  divine  nature,  or  it  is  idolatry  to  worship 
Christ  according  to  the  human  nature.  This  the  Socinian  con- 
troversialists in  JN'ew  England  saw  at  once,  and  their  arguments, 

*Lib.  de  Relig.  Pncfat.  :v\  Lect.   Lib.  XL  .le  Incarn;it.  "JOL         fApolog.  108. 


Chris 

to 

nature. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  513 

whicli  assumed  the  IN'estorianizing  views  of  IS'ew  England  as 
orthodox,  and  which  the  Orthodox  there  defended  as  Scriptural, 
were  consequently  never  fairly  met.  One  source  of  tlie  rapid 
and  deadly  triumplis  of  Socinianism  in  New  England  was  the 
unscriptural  and  lax  views  which  the  system  claiming  to  be 
orthodox  held  of  the  person  of  Christ. 

From  the  views  whicli  have  been  presented  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  our  readers  will  under- 
stand with  what  reservation  they  must  accept  Dr.   ch^ill;^rgreat 
Gerhart's  statement,  which  follows  the  one  on  which  misapprehension 

corrected. 

we  have  dwelt.  He  says  that  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine "involved  the  communicating  of  divine  attributes  to  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  in  virtue  of  which  His  human  nature 
was  not  limited  to  heaven,  nor  to  any  place  at  a  time,  but,  like 
the  divine  nature^  was  present  in  all  places  at  the  same  time 
where  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  was  instituted  and  adminis- 
tered." For  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  this  proposition, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  "  Herzog's  Encyclopaedia,  by  Dr.  Bom- 
berger."  We  would  protest  against  the  authority  of  Herzog's 
Encyclop{?edia  on  any  question  involving  a  distinctive  doctrine 
of  Lutheranism.  Great  as  are  the  merits  of  that  almost  indis- 
pensable work,  it  is  yet  an  unsafe  guide  on  any  question  which 
involves  in  any  way  the  so-called  Evangelical  Union.  The  arti- 
cle on  the  Communicatio  Idiomatum  is  written  by  Dr.  Schenkel, 
who  is  one  of  the  last  men  to  be  selected  for  such  a  work.  In 
its  whole  texture  it  is  Unionistic,  and  in  some  of  its  state- 
ments, demonstrably  incorrect.  The  article  has  been  very 
admirably  translated  by  Rev.  Dr.  Xrotel,  for  the  Abridgment 
of  Herzog,  edited  by  Dr.  Bomberger.  We  do  not  find,  how- 
ever, in  the  part  of  the  article  cited  by  Dr.  Gerhart,  nor  indeed 
in  any  part  of  it,  a  voucher  for  his  definition,  especially  for  the 
statement  that  our  Church  holds  that  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  is  present  ^'-like  the  divine  yiature.''  Dr.  Schenkel,  how- 
ever anxious  he  might  be  to  make  out  a  case  against  our  doc- 
trine, could  not  have  ventured  on  a  statement  which  is  not 
only  inconsistent  with  the  whole  theory  of  our  Church,  but  is 
contradicted,  in  express  terms,  in  the  Formula  of  Concord. 
Here  we  will  say,  as  we  said  before,  if  Dr.  Gerhart  will  show 

33 


514  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

US  a  solitary  passage  in  our  Confession,  or  in  any  approved 
author  of  our  Church,  which  says  that  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  is  present  "  like  the  divine  nature^''  we  will  confess  that 
we  have  too  hastily  pronounced  upon  his  statements,  and  will 
consent  to  sit  at  his  feet  as  a  learner  in  the  doctrines  of  our 
Church.  Our  Confessions,  as  we  read  them,  again  and  again 
assert  the  very  opposite,  and  we  will  undertake,  for  every  line 
in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  which  repudiates  the  doctrine 
that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  present  like  the  divine,  to 
produce  twenty  from  our  Confessions  which  repudiate  it  with 
equal  strength. 

As  Dr.  Gerhart  has  cited  no  passage  from  any  Lutheran 
authority  which  asserts  the  doctrine  he  imputes  to  us,  it  might 
be  sufficient  for  us  simply  to  meet  his  statement  with  this 
denial,  but  we  will  go  further,  and  cite  some  passages  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  in  which  it  is  expressly  repudiated. 

The  Formula  of  Concord,  in  its  Vlllth  Article,  after  assert- 
ing that  the  "  divine  virtue,  life,  power,  and  majesty  are  given 
to  the  human  nature  assumed  in  Christ,"  goes  on  to  say :  1. ''  This 
declaration,  however,  is  not  to  be  accepted  in  such  sense,  as  if 
these  were  communicated,  as  the  Father  has  communicated  to 
the  Son,  according  to  His  divine  nature.  His  own  essence,  and 
all  divine  properties,  whence  He  is  of  one  essence  with  the 
Father,  and  co-equal." 

2.  "  For  Christ  only  according  to  His  divine  nature  is  equal 
to  the  Father:  according  to  His  human  nature  He  is  under 
God:' 

3.  "  From  these  statements  it  is  manifest  that  we  imagine 
no  confusion,  equalizing  or  abolishing  of  the  natures  in  Christ. 
For  the  power  of  giving  life  is  not  in  the  flesh  of  Christ  in 

THE  SAME  WAY  IN  WHICH  IT  IS  IN  HiS  DIVINE    NATURE,  tO  wit,  aS 

an  essential  property :  this  we  have  never  asserted,  never 
imagined." 

4.  "  For  that  communion  of  natures,  and  of  properties,  is  not 
the  result  of  an  essential,  or  natural  etfusion  of  the  properties 
of  the  divine  nature  upon  the  human:  an  if  the  humanity  of 
Christ  had  the  in  subsisting  independently  and  separate  from  divin- 
ity ;  or  as  if  by  that  communion  the  human  nature  ./  Christ  had 


THE  PERSON   OF  CHRIST.  615 

laid  aside  its  natural  properties^  and  was  either  converted  into 
the  divine  nature,  or  was  made  equal  in  itself,  and  per  se  to  the 
divine  nature  by  those  properties  thus  communicated ;  or  that 
the  natural  properties  and  operations  of  each  nature  were  identical, 
or  even  equal.  For  these  and  like  errors  have  justly  been 
rejected  and  condemned  by  the  most  ancient  and  approved 
councils  on  Scriptural  grounds.  For  in  no  respect  is  there  to 
be  made,  or  admitted,  any  conversion,  or  confusion,  or  equal- 
izing, either  of  the  natures  in  Christ,  or  of  their  essential 
properties." 

5.  "  By  these  words, '  real  communication,  really  to  commu- 
nicate,' we  never  designed  to  assert  any  physical  communica- 
tion, or  essential  transfusion  (by  which  the  natures  would  be  con- 
founded in  their  essences,  or  essential  properties),  in  the  sense 
in  which  some,  craftily  and  maliciously,  doing  violence  to 
their  conscience,  have  not  hesitated,  by  a  false  interpretation, 
to  pervert  these  words  and  phrases,  only  that  they  may  put 
upon  sound  doctrine  the  burden  of  unjust  suspicion.  We 
oppose  these  words  and  phrases  to  a  verbal  communication, 
since  some  feign  that  the  communication  of  properties  is  no 
more  than  a  phrase,  a  mode  of  speech,  that  is,  mere  words  and 
empty  titles.  And  they  have  pressed  this  verbal  communica- 
tion so  far  that  they  are  not  willing  to  hear  a  word  of  any  other." 

6.  "There  is  in  Christ  that  one  only  divine  omnipotence, 
virtue,  majesty,  and  glory,  which  is  proper  to  the  divine  nature 
alone.  But  this  shines  and  exerts  its  power  fully,  yet  most 
freely  in,  and  with,  the  humanity  assumed.'* 

7.  "  For  it  is  so  as  in  white-hot  iron,  — the  power  of  shining 
and  burning  is  not  a  twofold  power,  as  if  the  fire  had  one  such 
power,  and  the  iron  had  another  peculiar  and  separate  power 
of  shining  and  burning,  but  as  that  power  of  shining  and  burn- 
ing is  the  property  of  the  fire,  and  yet  because  the  fire  is  united 
with  the  iron,  and  hence  exerts  that  power  of  burning  and  shin- 
ing in  and  with  the  iron,  and  through  that  white-hot  iron,  so, 
indeed,  that  the  glowing  iron  has  from  this  union  the  power 
both  to  burn  and  to  shine,  and  yet  all  this  is  without  the 
change  of  the  essence  or  of  the  natural  properties  either  of  the  iron 
or  of  the  fire  J' 


516  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

The  reader  will  please  observe  that  this  illustration  is  neither 
desio-ned  as  a  proof  of  the  doctrine,  nor  as  an  exhibition  of  the 
mode  of  the  union,  but  simply  as  an  aid  in  removing  a  misun- 
derstanding of  the  definition  of  terms. 

8.  "We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  there  occurred  no 
such  effusion  of  the  Majesty  of  God,  and  of  all  His  properties, 
on  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  or  that  anything  was  with- 
drawn from  the  divine  nature,  or  that  anything  from  it  was  so 
bestowed  on  another,  that  in  this  respect  it  no  longer  retained 
it  in  itself;  or  that  the  human  nature,  in  its  own  substance  and 
essence,  received  a  like  majesty,  separate  from  the  divine 
nature  and  essence." 

9.  ''  For  neither  the  human  nature  in  Christ,  nor  any  other 
creature  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  is  capacious  of  divine  omnipo- 
tence in  that  way,  to  wit,  that  of  itself  it  could  have  an 
omnipotent  essence,  or  have  the  properties  of  omnipotence  in 
itself  and  per  5^." 

10.  "  For  in  this  way  the  human  nature  in  Christ  would  be 
denied  and  com-pletely  changed  into  divinity,  which  is  repug- 
nant to  our  Christian  faith,  and  the  teaching  of  the  prophets 
and  apostles." 

11.  "We  reject,  therefore,  and  w^ith  one  consent,  one  mouth, 
one  heart,  condemn  all  errors  departing  from  the  sound  doc- 
trine we  have  presented  ;  errors  w^hich  conflict  with  the  writ- 
ings of  the  apostles  and  the  prophets,  w^ith  the  received  and 
approved  Ancient  Creeds,  and  with  our  cherished  Augsburg 
Confession.   These  errors  we  will  briefly  and  summarily  recite : 

"  That  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  because  of  the  personal 
union,  is  confounded  with  the  divinity,  or  transmuted  into  it  • 

"That  the  human  nature  in  Christ  in  the  same  way  as 
DIVINITY,  as  an  infinit:e  essence^nd  by  'an  essential  virtue  or 
property  of  its  own  nature,  is  everywhere  present  : 

"That  the  human  nature  in  Christ  has  become  equal  to 
the  divine  nature  in  its  substance  or  essence,  and  essential 
properties : 

"That  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  locally  extended  in  all 
places  of  heaven  and  earth,  an  affirmation  which  cannot  be 
made  with  truth,  even  of  divinity  : 


TEE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 


517 


"These  errors,  and  all  others  in  conflict  witli  sound  doctrine, 
we  reject,  and  we  would  exhort  all  devout  people  not  to  attempt 
to  scrutinize  this  deep  mystery  with  the  curious  search  of 
human  reason,  but  rather  with  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord  to 
exercise  a  simple  faith,  closing  the  eyes  of  human  reason,  and 
bringing  every  thought  into  captivity  to  the  obedience  of 
Christ.  But  most  sweet,  most  firm  consolation,  and  perpetual 
joy  may  they  seek  in  the  truth  that  our  flesh  is  placed  so  high, 
even  at  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  of  God,  and  of  His 
almighty  power.  Thus  shall  they  find  abiding  consolation  in 
every  sorrow,  and  be  kept  safe  from  every  hurtful  error." 

With  these  beautiful  words  our  Formula  of  Concord  closes 
its  matchless  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Redeemer's  per- 
son, and  wdth  them  we  close,  imploring  the  pardon  of  that 
ever-present  and  ever-precious  Saviour  for  our  poor  utterances 
on  such  a  theme,  and  beseeching  Ilim  to  bless  even  this 
unworthy  offering  to  the  strengthening  of  some  faint  heart  in 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 


/CokcolZN 

N.YOKM. 


XI. 

BAPTISM. 

(AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.  ART.  IX.) 


THE  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Baptism  may  be  stated  summarily 
in  the  following  propositions : 
.    I.  "  We  confess  one  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins."* 

II.  "  The  vice  of  origin  —  the  inborn  plague  and  hereditary 
sin  —  is  truly  sin,  condemning,  and  bringing  now  also  eternal 
death  upon  all  that  are  not  born  again  by  Baptism  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  "t 

III.  "  The  ministry  has  been  instituted  to  teach  the  Gospel 
and  administer  the  Sacraments ;  for  by  the  Word  and  Sacra- 
ments, as  by  instruments,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given.":t 

IV.  "  Unto  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  it  is  sufficient  to 
agree  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments." 

V.  "  It  is  lawful  to  use  the  Sacraments  administered  by  evil 
men  —  and  the  Sacraments  and  Word  are  efficacious  by  reason 
of  the  institution  and  commandment  of  Christ,  though  the 
priests  who  impart  them  be  not  pious. "§ 

VI.  "  The  churches  amons:  us  with  common  consent  teach 
concerning  Baptism : 

"1.  That  it  is  necessary  to  salvation. 
"2.  That  by  Baptism  the  grace  of  God  is  offered. 
"3.  That  children  are  to  be  baptized. 

"4.  That  by  Baptism  they  are  offered  and  committed  unto 
God. 

♦  Synib.  Nicjenum.     f  Aug.  Conf.  ii.  2.     %  Do.  v.  1,  2.     {  Do.  vii.  2  ;  viii.  1,  2. 

518 


BAPTISM.  519 

*'5.  And  that  thus  offered  by  Baptism,  they  are  received  into 
God's  favor." 

VII.  The  churches  among  us,  with  one  consent,  condemn  the 
Anabaptists,  who 

''1.  Allow  not  the  Baptism  of  children,  and  who  teach  that 
it  is  not  right ; 

*'  2.  And  who  affirm  that  children  are  saved  without  Bap- 
tism."* 

Our  Lord,  in  the  course  of  His  earthly  ministry,  authorized 
His  disciples  to  baptize  (John  iv.  1,  2),  and  previous  to  His 
ascension,  commanded  them  to  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations,  by  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Matt,  xxviii.  19). 
The  rite  of  Baptism,  thus  enjoined  by  our  Lord, 
has  been  the  subject  of  various  disputes  in  the  Christian 
world.  It  is  the  object  of  this  Dissertation  to  exhibit  the  faith 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  regard  to  the  points  of 
dispute.  Over  against  all  who  deny  the  divine  institution  and 
perpetuity  of  Baptism,  our  Church  maintains  that  ''  God  has 
instituted  it,"  and  that  it  is  obligatory  and  necessary  through- 
out all  time  (Aug.  Conf,  Art.  V.,YIL,YIIL,  IX., XIIL, XIV.), 
so  that  without  it  the  Church  cannot  exist  in  the  world. 
Serious  differences  of  opinion,  however,  exist  in  Christendom, 
even  among  those  who  recognize  the  perpetuity  and  obligation 
of  Baptism,  as  to  what  are  essential  to  Baptism,  even  as  to  its 
outward  part.  For,  while  all  are  agreed  that  the  use  of  water, 
and  of  the  Word,  is  essential,  some  parts  of  the  Christian 
world  maintain  that  the  essential  mode  of  Baptism  is  that  of 
the  lotal  immersion  of  the  body,  insomuch  that  this  immersion 
is  absolutely  necessary^  and  'positively  demanded  by  our  Lord^  and 
the  application  of  water  in  any  other  way  whatsoever  is  no 
Baptism.  The  Lutheran  Church  does  not  hold  that  immer- 
sion is  ESSENTIAL  TO  BaPTISM. 

That  the  Augsburg  Confession  uses  the  word  "  Baptism  "  in 
its  then  current  sense  is  indisputable.  Baptism  was  commonly 
administered  in  the  sixteenth  century  by  pouring,  and  sprink- 
ling, as  well  as  by  immersion.  In  the  Roman  Catholic  Agenda 
(Mentz),  1513,  the  Rubric  says :  "  He  shall  pour  (fundat)  the 

*  Aug.  Conf.  Art.  ix. 


620  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION'. 

water  thrice  upon  the  head  of  the  child,  so  that  it  shall  reach 
his  head  and  shoulders."   The  Augsburg  Ritual  (1587)  directs 
that  the  priest,  ''  taking  water  from  the  font  with  his  right 
hand,  shall  gently  pour  it  (perfundat)  over  the  head  and  body 
of  the  child  three  times."    The  Roman  Ritual  directs,  as  the 
normal  mode,  that   the  water   shall    be   poured.     If  immer- 
sion   had    been    regarded    by  the   confessors  as   a  divine  ele- 
ment  of    Baptism,   they    could     not    but    have    so    stated. 
They   declared    that    men    could    not    be   in   Church    unity 
who  did  not  agree   as  to   the   administration   of  the   Sacra- 
ments.    That  they  do  not  object  to  the  existing  ideas  of  tbe 
mode  of  Baptism  shows  that  they  received  them.     The  Augs- 
burg  Confession    speaks    of  the   various  washings,  made   in 
various  ways,  under  the  Old  Dispensation,  as  "  the  Baptisms 
of  the  Law."*     Melanchthon,  in  the  Instruction  to  the  Vis- 
itors (1528),  says:  "  Baptism  shall  be  observed  as  hitherto."t 
Luther,  in  the  XVII.  Schwabach  Articles  (1529),  designates 
the  prevailing  mode,  that  mode  which  he  had  in  his  own  mind 
in  using  the  word  Tauf,  as  ''  Begiessen,"  pouring  or  sprinkling.:}: 
These  articles  are  the  basis  of  the  doctrinal  part  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  and  fix  the  sense  of  its  terms.     In  Luther's 
own  form  of  Baptism  (1523),  which  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  his  abridgment  and  translation  of  the  Romish  form,  he 
directs  that  the  water  shall  be  poured  upon  the  child.     "It 
was  the  custom,"  says  Funk,§  "  at  that  time,  to  pour  water 
all   over   the   child,  as  Bugenhagen  tells    us:    'The   pouring 
(Begiessen)  in  Baptism  —  the  pouring  over  (iibergiesset)  the 
head  and  shoulders  of  the  child  .  .  is  seen  among^  us  over  all 
Germany.'  " 

Attempts  have,  indeed,  been  made  to  show  that  Luther,  at 
LuUuraiKitiio  Icast,  held  the  necessity  of  immersion,  and  that  the 
Jewess.  Lutheran  Church  cither  held  it  with  him,  or  was 

inconsistent  in  rejecting  it.  We  shall  show  how  groundless 
these  statements  are.  One  of  the  passages  most  frequently 
appealed  to,  in  the  attempt  to  implicate  Luther,  is  found  in 

*  Augs.  Conf.  xxvi.  22.      "The  Baptisms  of  the  Law  washed  the  members,  gar- 
ments, vebsels."  Luther.  Oper.  Lat.  Jen.  524. 

t  Corp.  Ref.  xxvi.  64.  J  Do.do.  156.  g  P.  115. 


LUTHER  AND    THE  JEWESS.  521 

vValch's  Edition  of  his  works,  X.,  2637.    In  regard  to  this,  the 
following  are  the  facts  : 

1.  The  passage  referred  to  is  from  a  letter  of  Luther,  writ- 
ten from  Coburg,  July  9th,  1530,  in  reply  to  an  Evangelical 
pastor,  Henry  Genesius,  who  had  consulted  him  in  regard  to 
the  Baptism  of  a  Jewish  girl.  It  will  be  noted  from  the  date 
that  the  letter  was  written  a  few  months  after  the  issue  of  the 
Catechisms,  in  w^hich  it  has  been  pretended,  as  we  shall  see, 
that  he  taught  the  necessity  of  immersion. 

2.  The  letter  given  in  Walch,  is  also  in  the  Leipzig  edition 
of  Luther  (XXII. ,  371),  and  is  not  in  either  edition  in  the 
original  language,  but  is  a  translation,  and  that  from  a  defec- 
tive copy  of  the  original.  The  original  Latin  is  given  in  De 
Wette's  edition  of  Luther's  Briefe  (IV.,  8),  and  contains  a  most 
important  part  of  a  sentence  which  is  not  found  in  the  Ger- 
man translation.  The  letter  in  Walch  cannot,  therefore,  be 
cited  in  evidence,  for  it  is  neither  the  original,  nor  a  reliable 
translation  of  it. 

3.  The  whole  letter  shows  that  the  main  point  of  inquiry 
was  not  as  to  whether  the  girl  should  be  baptized  in  this  or 
that  mode,  but  what  precautions  decency  demanded  during 
the  baptism,  provided  it  were  done  by  immersion. 

4.  Luther  says :  "  It  would  please  me,  therefore,  that  she 
should  .  .  modestly  have  the  water  poured  upon  her  {31ihi 
placeret,  ut,  .  .  verecunde  ferf under etur)^  or,  if  she  sit  in  the 
water  up  to  her  neck,  that  her  head  should  be  immersed  with 
a  trine  immersion."  {Caput  ejus  triiia  immersione  immergeretur.) 

5.  An  imrnersionist  is  one  who  contends  that  Baptism  must 
be  administered  by  immersion.  The  passage  quoted  is  decisive 
that  Luther  did  not  think  Baptism  7nust  be  so  administered. 
He  represents  it  as  pleasing  to  him,  best  of  all,  that  the  girl 
should  have  the  water  applied  to  her  by  pouring ;  or  that,  if 
she  were  immersed,  greater  precautions,  for  the  sake  of  decency, 
should  be  observed,  than  were  usual  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
It  is  demonstrated  by  this  very  letter,  that  Luther  was  not 

AN  IMxMERSIONIST. 

6.  In  suggesting  the  two  modes  of  Baptism,  Luther  was 
simply  following  the  Ritual  of  the  Romish  Church.     In  the 


522  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Romish  Ritual  the  direction  is :  "  Baptism  may  be  performed 
either  by  pouring,  immersion,  or  sprinkling;  but  either  the 
first  or  second  mode,  which  are  most  in  use,  shall  be  retained, 
according  as  it  has  been  the  usage  of  the  churches  to  employ 
the  one  or  the  other,  so  that  either  the  head  of  the  person 
to  be  baptized  shall  have  a  trine  ablution  —  that  is,  either  the 
water  shall  be  poured  upon  it  {'perfandatiim  —  ljMthQY  quotes 
the  very  word),  or  the  head  shall  be  immersed' (t^^  trina  ahlu- 
tione  caput  immergatitr)  —  L\iihev  again  quotes  almost  verbatim. 
In  the  Roman  Ritual,  furthermore,  for  the  Baptism  of  adults, 
it  is  said :  "  But  in  the  churches  where  Baptism  is  performed 
by  immersion,  either  of  the  entire  body,  or  of  the  head  only,  the 
priest  shall  baptize  by  thrice  immersing  the  person,  or  his  head  " 
{ilhan  vel  caput  ejus).  It  is  a  mistake,  as  these  words  demon- 
strate, to  suppose  that  even  if  immersion  be  practised,  there 
must  needs  be  a  submergence  of  the  whole  body.  Tbe  Roman 
Ritual  leaves  the  choice  between  the  immersion  of  the  whole 
body,  and  the  immersion  of  the  head.  The  immersion  of  the 
head  was  performed  in  the  case  of  infants,  usually  by  dipping 
the  back  of  the  head  into  the  font.  Thus  in  the  Ambrosian 
Ritual :  "  He  shall  dip  the  back  of  the  child's  head  [ter  occiput 
mergit)  three  times  in  the  water."  In  the  case  of  adults,  the 
solemn  immersion  of  the  head  could  take  jjlace,  in  the  same 
way,  without  any  sort  of  immersion  of  the  rest  of  the  body ; 
or,  the  person  could  go  into  the  water  up  to  the  neck,  and  the 
solemn  immersion  of  the  head  alone  be  made  by  the  minister. 
It  is  evident  that  in  the  second  case,  equally  with  the  first,  the 
baptismal  inmiersion  was  of  the  head  only.  Tbe  submergence 
to  the  neck  was  a  mere  natural  preparation  for  the  other.  It 
is  in  this  second  manner  that  Luther  directs,  in  case  the 
Jewess  was  immersed  at  all,  that  the  officiating  minister 
should  immerse  her  head  only.  She  was  to  seat  herself  in  the 
bath,  and  the  only  religious  immersion  was  not  that  of  her 
whole  body  (as  Rome  permits,  and  the  Baptists,  if  consistent, 
would  prescribe),  but  of  her  head  only  (ut  caput  ejus  immergere' 
tur).  Luther,  so  far  as  he  allowed  of  immersion  at  all,  was  not 
as  much  of  an  immersionist  as  the  Ritual  of  Rome  might  have 
made  him,  for  he  does  not  hint  at  the  immersion  of  the  whole 


LUTHER  AND   THE  JEWESS.  523 

body  of  the  Jewess  by  the  minister.  An  immersionist  contends 
that  the  whole  body  must  be  immerged  by  the  officiating  min- 
ister ;  not,  indeed,  that  he  is  to  lift  the  whole  body  and  plunge 
it  in,  but  the  whole  immersion  is  to  be  so  conducted  as  to  be 
clearly  his  official  work,  the  person  being  led  by  him  into  the 
water,  and  the  immersion  completed  by  his  bending  the  body, 
and  thus  bringing  beneath  the  surface  what  was  up  to  that  time 
uncovered.  Luther  preferred,  if  there  was  to  be  an  immersion, 
that  the  head  only,  not  the  body,  should  be  immersed  by  the 
minister  (not  ilium  sed  caput  ejus).  Even  to  the  extent, 
therefore,  to  which  he  allowed  immersion,  Luther  was  no 
immersioiiist. 

1.  If  Luther  could  be  proved,  by  this  letter,  to  be  an  immer- 
sionist, it  would  be  demonstrated  that  he  derived  his  view 
from  the  Romish  Church,  and  held  it  in  common  with  her. 
In  like  manner,  the  Church  of  England,  the  Episcopal 
Churches  of  Scotland  and  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Methodist  Churches,  would  be  carried  over  to  the  ranks  of 
immersionists,  for  they  allow  the  different  modes.  But  these 
Churches  are  confessedly  not  immersionist ;  therefore,  Luther 
was  no  immersionist. 

8.  Whatever  Luther's  personal  preferences  may  have  been 
as  to  mode,  he  never  even  doubted  the  validity  of  Baptism  by 
pouring.  But  immersionists  do  not  merely  doubt  it,  they  abso- 
lutely deny  it ;  therefore,  Luther  was  no  immersionist. 

9.  An  immersionist  is  one  who  makes  his  particular  mode 
of  Baptism  a  term  of  Church  communion,  and  an  article  of 
faith.  Luther  was  in  a  Church  which  did  not  prescribe 
immersion  as  necessary  —  never  made  it  an  article  of  faith ; 
therefore,  Luther  was  no  immersionist. 

10.  Finally,  the  letter  of  Luther  shows  that  he  preferred 
pouring.  He  says  expressly  that  it  would  please  him  that  the 
water  should  be  poured  upon  her,  and  gives  this  the  first  place  ; 
and  his  directions  in  regard  to  the  immersion,  are  given  only 
in  the  supposition  that  that  mode  might  be  decided  upon  —  "  if 
she  sit,  etc.,  her  head  shall  be  immersed,"  etc.,  si  sedens. 

Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  the  difference  between  the 
doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  immersion,  and   the   "  doctrine 


624  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

of  immersion,"  we  feel  safe  in  affirming  that  Luther  held 
neither. 

From  Luther's  Larger  Catechism,  by  confounding  the  very 
Luther'8  cate-  plain  dlstinctiou  between  allowance,  or  even  prefer- 
chisms.  Q^^QQ  q£  g^  mode,  and  a  belief  in  its  necessity,  the 

evidence  has  been  drawn  that  our  Confessions  teach  the  Bap- 
tist doctrine  of  immersion. 

Yet  this  very  Catechism,  in  express  terms,  repudiates  any 
such  doctrine,  and  acknowledges,  in  the  most  decisive  manner, 
what  the  Baptist  doctrine  denies  —  the  validity  of  other  modes 
than  immersion.  Mark  these  two  sentences  from  the  Larger 
Catechism  :  "  Baptism  is  not  our  work,  but  God's.  For  thou 
must  distinguish  between  the  Baptism  which  God  gives,  and 
that  which  the  keeper  of  a  bath-house  gives.  But  God's  work, 
to  be  saving,  does  not  exclude  faith,  but  demands  it,  for  with- 
out faith  it  cannot  be  grasped.  For  in  the  mere  fact  that  thou 
hast  had  icater  'poured  on  thee,  thou  hast  not  so  received  Bap- 
tism as  to  be  useful  to  thee  ;  but  it  profits  thee  when  thou  art 
baptized  with  the  design  of  obeying  God's  command  and  insti- 
tution, and  in  God's  name  of  receiving  in  the  water  the  salva- 
tion promised.  This  neither  the  hand  nor  the  body  can  eifect, 
but  the  heart  must  believe."*  In  these  words  there  is  an 
express  recognition  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  (for  the  word  used 
by  Luther  covers  both,  but  excludes  immersion)  as  modes  of 
Baptism. 

But  there  is  another  passage  yet  more  decisive,  if  possible: 
"  We  must  look  upon  our  Baptism,  and  so  use  it,  as  to 
strengthen  and  comfort  us  whenever  we  are  grieved  by  sins 
and  conscience.  We  should  say:  I  am  baptized,  therefore  the 
promise  of  salvation  is  given  me  for  soul  and  body.  For  to 
this  end  these  two  things  are  done  in  Baptism,  that  the  body, 
which  can  only  receive  the  water,  is  wet  by  pouring,  and  that, 
in  addition,  the  word  is  spoken  that  the  soul  may  receive  it."t 
Here  not  only  is  the  recognition  of  pouring  (or  sprinkling) 

*Catech.  Maj.  Miiller,  490,  3G,  das  Wasser  uber  dich  giessen.  The  Latin  is, 
**  aqua  perfundi.'''' 

f  Do.  402,  45.  German:  '^  Der  Leib  legossen  wird.'"  Latin:  ^*  Corpus  aqua 
pa/undatur.^* 


LUTHER'S   CATECHISMS.  525 

explicit,  but  if  the  words  were  not  compared  with  other 
expressions  of  Luther,  it  might  be  argued,  that  lie  and  our 
symbols  went  to  the  opposite  extreme  from  that  charged  upon 
them,  and,  instead  of  teaching  that  immersion  is  necessary, 
denied  its  validity.  So  far,  then,  is  the  charge  from  being 
verified,  that  we  are  authorized  to  make  directly  the  opposite 
statement.  Luther  and  our  Confessions  repudiate  utterly  the 
Baptist  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  immersion. 

In  the  original  of  the  Smaller  Catechism  there  is  not  a  word 
about  immersion  in  a  passage  sometimes  referred  to.  It  is 
simply,  "What  signifies  this  Water-Baiotism?  ''  (Wasser  Tauf- 
fen.)  "  Immersion  "  is  but  a  translation  of  a  translation.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  the  Smalcald  Articles.  The  original 
reads :  "  Baptism  is  none  other  thing  than  God's  Word  in  the 
water  {im  Wasser).^'  There  is  not  a  word  about  immersion.  "We 
do  not  rule  these  translations  out  because  they  at  all  sustain 
the  allegation  built  on  them.  Fairly  interpreted,  they  do  not ; 
but  we  acknowledge  the  obvious  rule  accepted  in  such  cases  — 
that  the  originals  of  documents,  and  not  translations  of  them, 
are  the  proper  subjects  of  appeal.  A  translation  can  carry  no 
authority,  except  as  it  correctly  exhibits  the  sense  of  the  origi- 
nal. Even  the  general  endorsement  of  a  translation  as  correct, 
by  the  author  of  the  original,  is  not  decisive  on  a  minute  point 
which  he  may  have  overlooked,  or  have  thought  a  matter  of 
very  little  importance.  A  clergyman  of  our  country  translates 
the  commentary  of  an  eminent  German  theologian,  and  receives 
from  him  a  warm  letter  of  thanks,  strongly  endorsing  the  accu- 
racy of  the  translation.  Yet,  not  only  in  a  possible  deviation 
of  the  translation  from  the  original,  but  in  any  matter  of 
doubt,  however  slight,  the  original  alone  would  be  the  source 
of  appeal.  As  the  Lutheran  Church  accepts  Luther's  version 
of  the  Bible,  subject  to  correction  by  the  original,  so  does  she 
accept  any  translation  of  her  symbols,  how^ever  excellent,  sub- 
ject to  correction  by  the  original. 

But,  even  if  the  principle  were  not  otherwise  clear,  the  facts 
connected  with  the  translation  of  the  different  parts  of  the 
Symbolical  Books  would  be  decisive  on  this  point.  The  trans- 
lation of  the  Smalcald  Articles,  made  in  1541,  by  Generanus,  a 


626  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

young  Danish  student  of  theology,  at  Wittenberg,  and  who 
was  an  intimate  friend  of  Luther,  was  confessedly  admirable, 
pith}',  and  Luther-like.  The  translation  which  Selneccer  pre- 
pared, or  selected,  for  the  Book  of  Concord,  1580,  was  an  entirely 
new  one^  very  inferior  to  the  old,*  and  this,  after  undergoing 
two  sets  of  changes,  is  the  one  now  ordinarily  found  in  the 
Latin  editions  of  the  Symbol.  This  is  one  of  the  translations 
to  which  appeal  is  made,  in  the  face  of  the  original,  and  lan- 
guage is  used  which  leaves  the  reader  under  the  impression 
that  these  articles  Avere  translated  under  Luther's  eye,  and  the 
translation  approved  by  him. 

The  German  translation  of  the  Apology,  found  in  the  Editio 
Princeps  of  the  German  Concordia,  and  in  most  other  editions, 
adds  some  things  which  are  not  in  the  Latin,  and  omits  some 
things  which  are  there.  Which  is  the  authority,  Melanchthon's 
Latin,  or  Jonas'  German,  if  a  dispute  arise  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  Apology  ? 

3.  The  Larger  Catechism  was  first  translated  by  Lonicer, 
faithfully,  and  into  good  Latin.  The  second  translation  was 
made  by  Opsop^Bus,  and  this  was  changed  in  various  respects 
by  Selneccer,  and  thus  changed,  w^as  introduced  into  the  Book 
of  Concord. 

4.  The  Smaller  Catechism  was  first  rendered  into  Latin  by 
an  unknow^n  hand,  then  by  Sauermann.  "  This  translation 
seems  to  have  been  introduced  into  the  Concordien-buch,  hut 
ivith  chavges^^^  says  Kollner. 

The  principle  involved,  which  no  honest  scholar  would  try 
to  weaken,  is  well  stated  by  Walch,  in  these  words :  f  "It  is 
by  all  means  proper  to  know  what  was  the  original  language 
of  each  of  our  Symbolical  Books,  since  it  is  manifest  that  from 
that.,  not  from  translations^  we  are  to  judge  of  the  genuine  and 
true  meaning  of  any  book.  What  they  teach  we  ought  to  see, 
not  in  versions,  but  in  the  original  language  itself,  especially 
where  the  matter  or  meaning  seems  involved  in  some  doubt. 
Versions  do  not  always  agree  entirely  with  the  writings  as 

*  "  DiflFuse    and    feeble."     F.    Francke :    L.    S.    Eccl.    Luth.    Pars    Sec.    xi. 
*'  Luther's  ideas  are  often  inuii'Iated  in   it."  —  Hase. 
•j- In  trod    in  Lib.,  Symbol,  61.  ' 


LUTHER'^   CATECHISMS.  527 

their  authors  composed  tljem  ;  as  tlie  facts  themselves  show  is 
the  case  in  our  Symbolical  Books  also." 

The  allusions  of  Luther  to  the  outward  mode  are  never 
found  in  his  definition  of  Baptism.  Ilis  allusions  to  immersion 
come,  in  every  case,  long  after  he  has  defined  Baptism.  Ills 
definition  of  Baptism,-in  the  Smalcald  Articles,  is:  "Baptism 
is  none  other  thing  than  the  Word  of  God  in  the  water, 
enjoined  by  his  institution."  His  definition  of  Baptism  in  the 
Larger  Catechism,  is  thus:  "  Learn  thou,  when  asked.  What 
is  Baptism?  to  reply,  It  is  not  mere  water,  but  water  em- 
braced in  God's  word  and  command.  It  is  a  mere  illusion 
of  the  Devil  when  our  New  Spirits  of  the  day  ask.  How 
can  a  handfal  of  icate?^  help  the  soul?"  And  then  comes  his 
powerful  vindication  of  this  "  handful  of  water  "  in  its  con- 
nection w^ith  the  Word.  In  the  Smaller  Catechism,  to  the 
question,  "  What  is  Baptism  ?  "  the  reply  is  :  "  Baptism  is  not 
mere  water,  but  that  water  which  is  comprehended  in  God's 
command,  and  bound  up  with  God's  Word."  ISTowhere  does 
any  Symbol  of  our  Church  say  that  Baptism  Z5  immersion,  or 
even  allude  to  immersion  when  it  speaks  of  that  which  consti- 
tutes Baptism. 

That  the  word  "  begiessen,"  by  which  Luther  indicates  one 
of  the  modes  of  Baptism,  can  only  indicate  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling, and  by  no  possibility  immersion,  every  one  even  moder- 
ately acquainted  with  German  very  well  knows.  The  proper 
meaning  of  begiessen,  as  given  by  Adelung,  is,  "  Ditrch  Giessen 
nass  machen,''  i.  e.,  to  wet  by  pouring  or  dropping.  Campe's 
definition  is,  "  JDurch  Darangiessen  einer  Fl'dssigkeit  nass 
mecchen^'^  i.  r.,  to  wet  by  the  pouring  on  of  a  fluid.  Frisch 
defines  it:  '^  Perfandi,  affundendo  mcidefacere^''  i.  t'.,  to  pour 
over,  to  wet  by  pouring  upon.  The  Grimms  define  it  by,  "Pcr- 
fundere^'  to  pour  over.  When  followed  by  "  mit,^'  governing 
a  noun,  the  "  mi^'  is  always  to  be  translated  ^' with,''  '^  mit 
Wasser  begiessen,''  ^^  to  wet  with  water  by  pouring  it."  When 
followed  by  ^^  eivf''  the  ^'■'avf"  means  "  upon."  When  Adler, 
Meissner,  and  others  give  "  moisten,"  "  bathe,"  "  soak,"  and 
similar  words  as  an  equivalent,  it  is  in  such  phrases  as,  "  to 
bathe  or  moisten  {begiessen)  the  hand  with  tears."     You  may 


528  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

use  "  hegiessen  "  when  the  hand  is  bathed  hj  the  tears  which 
pour  or  drop  upon  it ;  hut  if  the  hand  were  bathed  by  innners- 
ing  it  in  water,  a  German  would  no  more  use  "  bcgiesscn  "  to 
designate  that  act  tlian  we  Avould  use  ""ponr/'  We  affirm 
what  every  German  scholar  knows,  that  with  any  allusion, 
direct  or  indirect,  to  the  mode  in  which  a  liquid  can  be 
brought  into  contact  with  an  object,  "  hegiessen  "  never  means, 
and  never  can  mean,  either  in  whole  or  inclusively,  "to 
immerse."  It  is  so  remote  from  it  as  to  be  antithetical  to  it, 
and  is  the  very  word  used  over  against  the  terms  for  immer- 
sion, when  it  is  desirable  distinctly  to  state  that  Baptism  is 
not  to  be  performed  by  immersion. 

But  if  "  hegiessen ''  could  ever  mean  to  immerse,  or  include 
that  idea,  we  shall  demonstrate  specially  that  it  has  not  that 
force  in  Luther's  German.  Luther  uses  the  word  giessen 
upwards  of  fifty  times  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  and 
invariably  in  the  primary  sense  of  pour.  The  word  "  hegiessen.,^* 
in  which  the  prefix  "  he  "  simply  gives  a  transitive  character 
to  the  "  giessen  "  —  as  we  might  say  "  bepour,"  —  he  uses  five 
times.  Twice  he  uses  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  translate 
"  Yah-tzak,"  which,  in  twenty  other  passages  he  translates  by 
"  giessen,'^  to  pour.  The  two  passages  in  which  hegiessen  is 
used  are,  Gen.  xxxv.  14,  ''Jacob  j^onred  [hegoss)  oil  thereon," — 
hardly,  we  think,  immersed  his  pillar  of  stone  in  oil ;  Job 
xxxviii.  38,  ""Who  can  stay  the  bottles  of  heaven,  when 
the  dust  groweth  (Marg.  Hebr.  is  poured,  hegossen)  into  hard- 
ness,"—  hardly  meaning  that  the  compacting  of  the  mire  is 
made  by  immersing  the  ground  into  the  showers.  Three 
times  Luther  uses  "  hegiessen "  in  the  !N'ew  Testament,  1 
Cor.  iii.  6,  7,  8,  "  Apollos  watered :  he  that  watereth 
{hegossen.,  hegeusst)^'  —  referring  to  the  sprinkling,  or  pouring 
of  water  on  plants.  So  Luther  also  says :  "  Hatred  and 
wrath  are  poured  over  me  {ueher  mich  hegossen).,'^  Jena 
Ed.  V.  55. 

We  have  shown  that  the  general  usage  of  the  language  does 
not  allow  of  the  interpretation  in  question.  We  liave  shown 
that,  if  it  did,  Luther's  German  does  not.  AVe  shall  now 
show  that  if  both  allowed  it  anywhere,  it  is  most  especially 


LUTHER'S   CATECHISMS.  529 

not  allowable  in  the  Catechism,  nor  in  Luther's  use  of  it  any- 
where, with  reference  to  Baptism. 

ISTow  for  '^ giessen''  and  ^' begiessen,''  in  their  reference  to  Bap- 
tism by  Luther,  in  the  Catechism  and  elsewhere,  can  they 
include  not  exclude  immersion  ?     Let  us  try  this. 

1.  Larger  Catechism:  Dass  du  Idssest  das  Wasser  uherdi:h 
giessen  {quod  te  aqua  perfundi  sinis).  We  affirm  that  these  words 
have,  to  any  one  who  knows  anything  of  German,  but  one  pos- 
sible meaning,  and  that,  like  the  verbal  English  translation  of 
the  words  "  that  thou  lettest  the  water  pour  over  thee,"  the 
German  cannot  mean  "  thou  lettest  thyself  be  dipped  into  the 
water." 

2.  What  mode  of  Baptism  Luther  had  in  his  mind  is  clear, 
furthermore,  from  the  words  in  immediate  connection  with 
those  we  have  quoted,  for  he  says :  "  This  (the  work  of  the 
heart)  the  bent  hand  (Faust*)  cannot  do,  nor  the  body,"  the 
connection  showing  the  thought  to  be  this :  neither  the  bent 
hand  of  the  administrator  of  Baptism, — bent  to  gather  up  and 
pour  the  water,  — nor  the  body  of  the  recipient,  can  take  the 
place  of  faith,  in  securing  the  blessings  of  Baptism. 

3.  This  is  rendered  clear  again,  from  the  words,  "  Was 
sollt  ein  hand  voll  Wasser s  der  Seelen  helfen  f  "  What  can  a 
handful  of  water  help  the  soul  ?  This  shows  that  the  "  hand- 
ful of  water  "  was  connected  with  a  received  mode  at  that 
time  in  the  Lutheran  Churches. 

If  the  sense  of  begiessen,  as  applied  to  Baptism,  were  obscure, 
(as  it  is  not  —  no  word  more  clearly  excludes  immersion)  this 
passage  would  settle  it. 

4.  But  there  is  abundance  more  of  evidence  on  this  point. 
In  Luther's  own  Ritual  for  Baptism,  the  officiating  minister 
"pours  the  water,"  (^ei^5.s^  Wasser  auf)  and  says:  ''' Ich  taufe 
dichr 

5.  In  the  Article  of  Torgau,  the  fanatics,  who  in  the  Cate- 
chism are  characterized  as  asking,  "  What  can  the  handful  of 
water  do,"  are  represented  as  calling  Baptism  ''  miserable 
water,  or  pouring  "  {begiessen). 

*  As  in  Isaiah  xl,  12,  "  Wer  misset  die   Wasser  mil  der  Faust.''    Eng.  Ver.:  "Who 
hath  measured  the  water  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand?  " 
84 


530  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

6.  In  the  letter  of  July  9th,  1530:  "That  standing,  she 
should  have  the  water  poured  upon  her  [perf under etur)^  or  sit 
ting,  her  head  should  be  immersed  {immergeretur),'^  surely  not 
both  the  same. 

7.  In  the  Wittenberg  Liturgy  of  1542,  those  are  spoken  of 
who  do  "  not  dip  {tauchen)  the  infants  in  water,  nor  {iioch)  pour 
it  upon  them  {hegiessen).^^ 

But  Luther  says  the  body  is  baptized  ;  therefore,  of  necessity, 
it  is  urged,  by  immersion.  When  St.  Paul  describes  Baptism 
in  the  words  "  having  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water,'' 
he  can  hardly  be  said  to  prove  himself  an  immersionist. 
Luther's  words  are :  "  These  two  things  are  done  in  Baptism, 
that  the  body,  which  is  able  to  receive  nothing  besides  the 
water,  is  wet  by  pouring,  and,  in  addition,  the  Word  is  spoken, 
that  the  soul  may  embrace  it."  Body  and  soul  are  two  things 
in  Luther's  mind,  and  it  is  not  hard  to  see  that  the  body  does 
receive  what  is  poured  on  the  head. 

But  if  the  criticism  of  the  word  ''  body  "  stood,  it  would  do 
no  good,  for  water  can  be  applied  to  the  entire  body  by  pour- 
ing (or  even  by  sprinkling),  as  was  largely,  though  not  uni- 
versally, the  usage  in  our  Church.  The  water  was  poured  so 
copiously  in  some  cases  as  to  wet  the  entire  body  of  the  infant. 

Luther,  in  speaking  of  the  permanence  of  the  Baptismal 
Covenant,  and  of  the  power  of  returning,  by  repentance,  to  its 
blessings,  even  after  we  fall  into  sin,  says:  ^'-Aber  mit  Wasser 
ob  man  sich  gleich  hundertmal  Idsset  ins  Wasser  senken,  ist  dock 
nicht  mehr  deiin  JEine  TavfcJ'  This  has  been  thus  translated 
and  annotated  :  "  'But  no  one  dares  to  begiessen  ua  with  water 
again  ;  for  if  one  should  be  sunk  in  water  [ins  wasser  senkeyi)  a 
hundred  times,  it  is  no  more  than  one  Baptism.'  Here  senken 
is  used  along  with  begiessen^  and  to  explain  it." 

But  neither  the  translation,  nor  interpretation,  is  accurate. 
''^Darf  does  not  mean  "  dares,"  but  means  "  needs,"  as  the 
Latin  has  it,  ^'' non  est  neeesse."  The  "  o6  gleich''  has  been 
dropped,  those  important  words  which  the  Latin  properly  ren- 
ders ^^efsi^''  "  for  even  though  one  should  be  sunk."  ''  Senken  " 
is  not  used  to  explain  begiessen.  Luther  does  not  mean  that  to 
''pour  upon  with  water  "  is  equivalent  to  being  "  sunk  in  water 


LUTHER'S   TRANSLATION  OP  THE  BIBLE.       531 

a  hundred  times."  The  point  is  this:  After  the  one  Baptism, 
the  repentant  sinner  needs  not  that  water  should  he  poured 
upon  him  again.  No  re-pouring  can  make  a  re-haptism.  Xay, 
if  he  were  not  merely  powrec/  upon,  hwt  sunk  into  the  water, 
not  once.,  hat  a  hundred  times,  still,  in  spite  of  the  quantity  of 
the  w^ater,  and  the  manifold  repetition  of  the  rite,  there  would 
be  but  one  Baptism.  There  is  an  antithesis,  not  a  parallel, 
between  "  pour  "  and  "  sink,"  and  between  "  once  "  and  a 
*'  hundred  times."* 

Luther's  translation  of  the  words  connected  with  Baptism., 
proves  that  he  was  no  immersionist.  Luti.ers trane- 

1.  Immersionists  say  that  Baptisms  should  al-  i^^^t'on  of  the 
loays  be  translated  immersion.    Luther,  throughout 

his  translation  of  the  Bible,  never  translates  it  immersion  {unter- 
tauchung),  or  dipping  {eiyitauchung).,  or  plunging  {versenkung)., 
but  always  and  exclusively.  Baptism  {Taufe). 

2.  Immersionists  translate  Baptismos  immersion.  Luther 
translates  it  either  Baptism  or  washing.  Mark  vii.  4  —  Bap- 
tist Version :  Immersion  of  cups,  etc.  Luther :  uxishing.  Do. 
8  —  Baptist  Version  :  immersions  ;  Luther :   washing. 

3.  a.  Immersionists  say  that  Baptizo  should  always  be  trans- 
lated to  immerse.  Luther  never  translates  it  by  immerse,  nor 
any  of  its  equivalents,  but  with  the  exceptions  we  shall  men- 
tion in  a  moment,  by  Taufen,  to  baptize. 

b.  Immersionists  say,  moreover,  that  en  following  baptizo., 
should  be  translated  in,  "  I  immerse  you  in  water  ;  "  "  he  shall 
immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc.  Luther  translates  as 
does  our  English  version :  "  I  baptize  you  with  {init)  water  ;  " 
*'  he  shall  baptize  you  ivith  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc. 

a.  Luther  translates  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  "  AVhat  shall  they  do 
which  are  baptized  above  the  dead,"  and  explains  itf  of  admin- 
istering Baptism  "  at  the  graves  of  the  dead,''  in  token  of  faith 
in  the  resurrection.  The  words  of  Luther  are  :  "  They  are  bap- 
tized at  the  graves  of  the  dead,  in  token  that  the  dead  who 
lay  buried  there,  and  over  whom  they  were  baptized,  would 
rise  again.  As  we  also  might  administer  Baptism  publicly 
in  the  common  church-yard,  or  burial  place.":}:     Inmiersionists 

*  497.  78.  t  Leipz.  Ed.  X.  384.  |  Auslegung,  Anno  1534. 


632  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

generally  prefer  to  consider  the  Baptism  here  as  metaphorical, 
and  immerse  the  live  saints  in  sorrows. 

4.  Immersionists  say  that  the  radical  idea  of  Bapiizo^  in  its 
N'ew  Testament  use,  is  not  that  of  washing.  Luther  repeatedly 
translates  it  to  ivash.  We  will  present  some  of  these  transla- 
tions in  contrast.  Translation  on  Immersionist  principles: 
Judith  xii.  8,  "Judith  went  out  and  immersed  herself  at  a 
spring  near  the  camp  ;  "  Luther :  "  and  washed  herself  in  the 
water."  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  25  —  Immersionist:  "He  that 
immerses  himself  after  touching  a  dead  hody  ;  "  Luther:  "  That 
washeth  himself."  Mark  vii.  5  —  Immersionist  :  "  (The  Phari- 
sees and  all  the  Jews,)  when  they  come  from  the  market,  unless 
they  immerse  themselves,  eat  not ;  "  Luther :  "  ivash  them- 
selves." Luke  xi.  38  —  Immersionist:  "That  he  had  not 
immersed  himself;  "  Luther:  "washed  himself." 

5.  The  Baptist  version  renders  Baptistes,  Immerser  ;  Luther, 
always  Tduffer,  Baptist. 

6.  Immersionists  say  that  Bapto  always  properly  means,  to 
dip.  Luther  translates  Rev.  xix.  13 :  "  He  was  clothed  with 
a  vesture  sprinkled  with  blood." 

These  proofs  are  enough  to  demonstrate  that,  judged  as  a 
translator,  Luther  was  no  immersionist. 

But  it  has  been  urged  that  Luther  has  used  taufte,  where 
our  translators  have  "  dipped,"  2  Kings  v.  14.  The  fact  is, 
however,  that  this  verse  alone  is  enough  to  dis^wse  of  the  false 
theory.  Our  translators  have  "  dipped,"  it  is  true ;  but  aa 
Luther  did  not  translate  from  our  authorized  version,  that 
proves  nothing.  That  same  authorized  version  has  "  dipped  " 
in  Rev.  xix.  13,  where  Luther  has  "- hesjorenget.,''  "sprinkled." 
The  fact  is,  that  if  the  ravages  in  the  German,  on  the  part  of 
those  who  are  determined  to  make  Luther  a  Baptist,  or  an 
Anabaptist,  against  his  will,  are  not  arrested,  they  will  not 
leave  a  word  in  that  language,  once  deemed  somewhat  copious, 
which  will  express  any  mode  of  reaching  the  human  body  by 
water,  except  by  dipping;  '' begiessen''  snid '^  taiifen''  are  dis- 
posed of,  and  "  besprengen  "  can  be  wiped  out  exactly  as  "  tan- 
fen  "  has  been.  The  question,  however,  is  worth  a  moment's 
attention,  Why  Luther  used  the  word  "  taufte,''  in  2  Kings  v. 


tVTHEB'S   TRANSLATION  OF  THE  BIBLE.       533 

14  ?     The  word  "  ta-hhal "  is  used  sixteen  times,  but  Luther 
never  traushited  it  "  taufen,"  except  in  this  place.     It  is  also, 
noticeable  that  in  this  place  alone  does  the  Septuagint  translate 
''ta-hhaV  by  '' baptizo:'     The  Vulgate  considers  it  as  equiva- 
lent in  meaning  to  "  ra-hhatz  "  of  the  preceding  verses,  and 
translates  it  ''lavit,''  washeJ.     The  Targum  considers  the  two 
words  as  equivalent.     So  does  the  Syriac,  and  so  the  Arabic. 
Pagninus'  version  gives  to  both  the  same  meaning,  but  marks 
the  distinction  between  their  form  by  translating  "  ra-hhatz^'' 
''lavo,''  and  "-ta-hhal,''  '' abluo.''     In  his  Thesaurus,  he  gives 
as  a  definition  of  "  ta-hhal,''  "  lavare,  haptizare,"  and  translates 
it  in  2  Kings  v.  14,  '' lavit  se,"  washed  himself.     Origen,  and 
many  of  the  Fathers,  had  found  in  the  washing  of  Xaaman  a 
foreshadowing  of  Baptism.     De  Lyra,  Luther's  great  favorite 
as  an  expositor,  expressly  calls  this  washing  (2  Kings  v.  14)  a 
receiving  of  Baptism.     Luther  saw  in  it  the  great  idea  of  Bap- 
tism—the union  of  water  with  the  Word,  as  he  expressly  tells 
us,  in  commenting  on  the  passage,  in  his  exposition  of  the  cxxii. 
Psalm.*    The  word  "  taufte,"  therefore,  is  to  be  translated  here, 
as  everywhere  else  in  Luther's  Bible,  not  by  immerse,  but  by 
"baptize."     I^aaman  baptized  himself,  7J0«!  dipped  himself  in 
Jordan,  is  Luther's  meaning.     The  Hebrew,  ta-bhal,  Luther 
translates  fourteen  times,  by  tauchen,  to   dip,  in  accordance 
with  its  accepted  etymology.     But  he  also  translates  what  he 
regarded  as  its  participle,  by  color  or  dye,  Ezek.  xxiii.  15. 
According   to  the   mode  of  reasoning,  whose  fallacy  we  are 
exposing,  wherever  Luther  uses  "  tavfen,"  we  may  translate  it 
"  to  dye  ;  "  for  the  etymological  force  of  a  word,  according  to 
this,  is  invariable,  and  all  true  translations  of  it  must  have  the 
same  meaning. 

Bapto  Luther  translates  by  "  tauchcn  and  eintauehen,"  to  dip, 
dip  in  ;  but  he  also  translates  by  ''hesprengen  "  (Rev.  xix.  13), 
to  sprinkle :  but,  according  to  this  mode  of  reasoning,  tauchen 
and  taufen  both  being  equivalents,  tanfen  is  sprinkling,  and  Bap- 
tism is  sprinkling,  and  dipping  is  sprinkling.  By  the  way  in 
which  it  is  proved  that  Tavfe  is  immersion,  may  be  proved  that 
both  Taufe  and  immersion  are  sprinkling.    Baptizo  Luther  never 

*  Leipz   Edit.  V.  461. 


534  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

translated  by  (auchen,  nor  by  any  word  which  would  be  under- 
stood by  the  readers  of  his  version  to  mean  immersion.  What- 
ever may  be  the  etymology  of  Tavfe^  its  actual  use  in  the  German 
language  did  not  make  it  equivalent  to  immersion.  Sprinkling 
(Bcspreiigen)  or  pouring  [Begiessen)  were  called  Taufe.  If 
Luther  believed  that  the  actual  (not  the  primary  or  etymo- 
h)gical)  force  of  the  word  made  immersion  necessary,  he  was 
bound  before  God  and  the  Church  to  use  an  unambiguous 
term.  It  is  not  true  that  ^'tauchen'"  or  '•'-  eintauchen^'  had, 
either  then  or  now,  that  very  trifling  and  vulgar  sense  which, 
it  is  alleged,  unfitted  them  over  against  "  taufen^''  to  be  used 
to  designate  immersion.  Luther  uses  them  in  his  Bible,  and, 
when  in  his  Liturgies  he  means  to  designate  immersion,  these 
words  are  the  very  words  he  employs. 

Luther  used  the  ancient  word  Taufen,  because,  in  the  fixed 
usage  of  the  German,  Taiifen  meant  to  baptize.  Whatever 
inay  have  been  the  etymology  of  it,  we  find  its  ecclesiastical 
use  fixed  before  the  ninth  century.  Otfried  so  uses  it,  A.  D. 
868.  Eberhard  and  Maass,  in  their  great  Synonymik  of  the 
German,  say :  "  After  Taufen  was  limited  to  this  ecclesiastical 
signification,  it  was  no  longer  used  for  Tauchen,  and  can  still 
less  be  used  for  it  now  that  Taufen  (Baptism)  is  no  longer  per- 
formed by  Eintauchcn  (immersion)." 

The  prepositions  which  Luther  used  in  connection  with 
"  taufen .,''  show  that  he  did  not  consider  it  in  its  actual  use  as  a 
synonym  of  immerse :  to  baptize  jmth  water  (mit),  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  (mit).  John  baptized  with  water  (init) ;  baptized 
under  Moses  (unter)  with  the  cloud  {mit).  It  is  not  English  to 
talk  of  immersing  imth  water ;  nor  would  it  be  German  to  fol- 
low ^'tauchen  "  or  "  eintauchen  "  by  "  mit ;  "  nor  any  more  so  to 
use  ''  mit  "  after  ''  taufen^^  if  taufen  meant  to  immerse. 

Furthermore,  Luther  has  twice,  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  "  To  baptize 
over  the  dead  [liher)^''  which  he  explains  to  refer  to  the  baptism 
of  adults  over  the  graves  of  the  martyrs. 

But  Luther  has  not  left  us  to  conjecture  what  he  considered 
the  proper  German  equivalent  for  haptizo  and  haptismos^  in 
their  actual  use  —  how  much  their  actual  use  settled  as  to  the 
mode  of  Baptism.     Five  times  onl}^  he  departs  from  the  render- 


LUTHER'S   TRANSLATION  OF   THE  BIBLE.       535 

ing  by  Taufc.^  or  Taufcn^  but  not  once  to  use  "  tauchen,''  but 
invariably  to  use  Waschen^  to  wash. 

Judith  xii.  8:  Und  wiisch  sich  im  Wasser,  washed  herself; 
(Gr. :  Ebaptizdo  ;  Vulg. :  Baptizat  se). 

Sir.  xxxiv.  30  (25) :  TFcr  sich  lodscht,  he  who  washes  himself; 
(G  r. :  Baptizomenos  ;  Vulg. :  Baptizatur)^  what  avails  him  this 
washing?  5cm  Waschen?  (Gr.:  Loutron). 

Mark  vii.  24 :  TJngewaschen  (aniptois)  Hdnden  —  sie  waschen 
{nipsontai)^  sie  waschen  sich  (baptizontai),  Tische  zu  waschen  {bap- 
tismous)  ;  vii.  8  :  Zu  waschen  (baptismous), 

Luke  xi.  38;  Dass  er  sich  nicht  vordem  Essen  gewaschen  hatte 
(ebaptiste). 

He  translates  baptizo  as  he  translates  nipto  and  louo. 

Here  is  the  demonstration,  that  while  Luther  believed,  in 
common  with  many  philologists,  that  the  etymological  force 
(Laut)  of  baptismos  and  baptisma  is  "immersion,"  its  actual 
force  in  Biblical  use  is  "  washing,"  without  reference  to  mode. 
Luther  treats  it  as  having  the  same  generic  force  with  louo^ 
pluno,  and  nipto,  all  of  w^hich  he  translates  by  the  same  word, 
waschen,  just  as  our  authorized  version  translates  every  one  of 
them,  baptizo  included,  by  wash.  With  the  etymology  of  the 
Greek  goes  also  the  etymology  of  the  German.  The  primitive 
mode  of  washing,  in  nations  of  warm  or  temperate  countries, 
is  usually  by  immersion.  Hence  the  words  in  many  languages 
for  the  two  ideas  of  dipping  and  washing  come  to  be  synonyms 
—  and  as  the  word  washing  ceases  to  designate  mode,  and  is 
equally  applied,  whether  the  water  be  poured,  sprinkled,  or 
is  plunged  in,  so  does  the  word  which,  etymologically,  meant 
to  dip.  It  follows  the  mutation  of  its  practical  equivalent, 
and  comes  to  mean  washing,  without  reference  to  mode.  So 
our  word,  bathe,  possibly  implies,  p>rimarily,  to  immerse.  But 
we  now  bathe  by  "  plunge,"  "  douch,"  or  "  shower-bath,"  and 
we  know  that  the  wider  use  of  the  word  "  bathe  "  is  very  old 
in  English,  as,  for  example,  Chaucer^  says : 

"His  heart -blood  hath  bathed  all  his  hair." 

If  the  baptismal  commission  had  been  given  in  English,  and 

*Knightes  Tale,  v.  2,009. 


536  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  word  used  had  been  Bathe,  the  person  who  admitted  that 
the  word  "  bathe  "  covered  all  modes  of  applying  water,  but 
who,  in  a  case  confessedly  a  matter  of  freedom,  would  prefer 
immersion  as  the  mode,  because  it  corresponds  with  what  he 
believes  to  be  the  etymology  of  bathe,  as  well  as  with  its  actual 
use,  would  do  what  Luther  did  in  a  cognate  case,  in  1519,  of 
which  we  are  about  to  speak ;  but  the  inference  that  either 
regarded  the  word  in  question  as  meaning  to  immerse,  or  as  a 
Bynonym  of  it,  would  be  most  unwarranted. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that  Luther  was  an 
Luti.er'8  etv-  i^imersionist,  by  citing  his  views  of  the  etymology 
moioRies  of  tiie  both  of  thc  Greek  and  German  words  involved. 
The  citation  relied  on  for  this  purpose,  is  from  the 
sermon :  Vom  Sacrament  der  Taufe^^  which  has  been  thus 
given:  '•'•  Die  taiife  (baptism)  is  called  in  GvQtd^i^  haptismos ;  in 
Latin,  immersion,  that  is,  when  anything  is  wholly  dipped 
{ganz  ins  wasser  taiicht)  in  Avater  which  covers  it."  Further, 
"according  to  the  import  of  the  word  Tavf^  the  child,  or  any 
one  who  is  baptized  (getaiift  icird)^  is  wholly  sunk  and  immersed 
[sonk  mid  tavft)  in  water  and  taken  out  again ;  since,  without 
doubt,  in  the  German  language,  the  word  Taiifis  derived  from 
the  word  Tie/,  because  what  is  baptized  {taufet)  is  sunk  deep  in 
water.     This,  also,  the  import  of  Ta?// demands." 

This  translation  is  not  characterized  by  accuracy.  For 
example,  it  renders  both  ''  Laut "  and  "  Bedeutung ^^  by  the 
one  word  imfort^  wlien  Luther  expressly  distinguishes  between 
*'  Ijaut  "  and  "  Bedeutvng  ;  "  the  former  referring  to  the  etymo- 
logical or  primary  literal  force  of  a  word,  and  the  latter  to  the 
moral  significance  of  a  rite. 

Further,  it  mutilates  and  mistranslates  the  words,  which, 
literally  rendered,  are :  ''  Yet  it  should  then  be,  and  would  be 
RIGHT  {und  war  recht)  that  one  sink  and  baptize  entirely  in  the 
water,  and  draw  out  again,  the  child,  etc."  How  different  the 
air  of  Luther's  German  from  that  of  the  inaccurate  English. 

There  is  another  yet  more  significant  fact.  It  omits,  out  of 
the  very  heart  of  the  quotation,  certain  words,  which  must 
have  shown  that  the  idea  that  "  hegiessen  "  includes  immersion 

*  Leipzig  Edition,  xxii.  139. 


LUTHER'S  ETYMOLOGIES   OF  THE    WORDS.      537 

is  entirely  false.  The  two  sentences  which  are  quoted  are  con- 
nected by  these  words,  which  are  not  quoted  :  "  And  although 
in  many  places  it  is  no  longer  the  custom  to  plunge  and  dip 
{stosscn  unci  taiichcri)  the  children  in  the  font  [die  Tauf),  but 
they  are  poured  upon  {Ijcgcusst)  with  the  hand,  out  of  the  font 
{aus  der  Taufy  Here,  over  against  immersion,  as  the  very 
word  to  mark  the  opposite  mode,  is  used  that  "  begiessen" 
which,  it  is  pretended,  refers  to  immersion.  It  seems  to  us 
inconceivable  that  any  one  could  read  the  passage  in  the  origi- 
nal, without  having  the  falsity  of  the  former  position  staring 
bim  in  the  face. 

On  the  whole  passage  we  remark : 

Firstn  That  the  sermon  was  published  in  1519,  among  the 
earliest  of  Luther's  writings,  ten  years  before  the  Catechism, 
and  when  he  had  not  yet  made  the  originals  of  Scripture  the 
subject  of  his  most  careful  study,  and  when  his  views  were 
still  largely  influenced  by  the  Fathers  and  Romish  theology. 
It  was  published  five  years  before  he  began  bis  translation  of 
tbe  I^ew  Testament,  and  more  than  twenty  before  he  gave  bis 
Bible  its  final  revision.  This  raises  the  query  whether  his 
views,  after  the  thorough  study  of  the  Bible,  connected  with 
bis  translating  it,  remained  unchanged.  We  have  given,  and 
can  give  again,  ample  proof  that  if  Luther's  meaning  in  1519 
implies  the  necessity  of  immersion,  his  opinion  had  undergone 
a  total  change  before  1529,  when  the  Larger  Catechism,  whose 
words  are  in  question,  was  published. 

Secondly.  The  passage  is  not  pertinent  to  the  proof  of  that 
for  which  it  is  urged.  Luther  designs  to  give  what  he  sup- 
poses to  be  tbe  etymological  force  of  Baptismos  and  Taufe  —  not 
to  show  their  force  in  actual  use.  That  Luther  afiirms,  not 
that  Baptismos  and  Taufe  in  actual  use  mean  ''  immersion,'' 
but  only  etymologically,  is  clear.  1.  From  the  whole  vein 
of  argument.  As  an  argument  concerning  the  etymology  of 
the  words,  it  is  pertinent ;  as  an  argument  on  the  actual  use 
of  either,  it  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  absurd.  2.  From 
bis  limitation  by  the  word  '^  ian/,"  which  means  ''Etymo- 
logy," as  Luther  himself  translates  it  in  the  Latin,  "  Etyiaol- 
ogia.''     3.  By  the  fact    that   twice,  in    these  very  sentences, 


538  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Luther  uses  Taufe  not  in  the  sense  either  of  immersion  or  of 
Baptism,  but  of  "font."  4.  That  in  his  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  he  uses  "  Tavfe  "  for  "  Baptism,"  without  limita- 
tion to  mode.  5.  That  in  his  translation  of  the  Romish 
Ritual,  and  wherever  else  he  wishes  to  indicate  the  idea  of 
immersion,  he  never  uses  taufe  or  taiifen^  always  taiichen  or 
untertaiichung.  6.  That  in  the  only  Baptismal  Service  prop- 
erly Luther's  own,  he  directs  the  water  to  be  poured,  with  the 
words,  Ich  taufe,  7.  That  he  repeatedly  recognizes  the  validity 
of  Taufe  by  pouring,  which  would  be  ridiculous,  if  Taufe  in 
actual  use  meant  immersion. 

Third.  The  Latin  of  Luther's  Sermon  on  Baptism,  in  the 
Jena  Edition,  an  edition  which  excludes  everything*  of  his 
which  was  not  officially  approved,  makes  very  plain  the  drift 
of  the  words  quoted.  It  says  :  "  The  noun.  Baptism,  is  Greek, 
ixwdi  can  be  rendered  {potest  verti)  in  Latin,  iff6?'5io," — "That 
[i.  e.,  the  immersion  and  drawing  out)  the  etymology  of  the 
word  [Etymologia  nominis — Laut  des  Wortleins)  seems  to  de- 
mand {postulare  videtur).'''  From  Luther's  opinion  on  the 
etymology  of  the  words  Baptism  and  Taufe,  the  inference  is 
false  that  he  held  that  Baptism,  in  the  actual  use  of  the  word, 
meant  immersion,  and  that  the  German  w^ord  Taufe,  in  actual 
USE,  had  the  same  meaning.  To  state  the  proposition  is  to 
show  its  fallacy  to  any  one  familiar  with  the  first  principles  of 
language. 

1.  That  the  etymological  force  and  actual  use  of  words  are 
often  entirely  different  every  scholar  knows.  Carnival  is,  ety- 
mologically,  a  farewell  to  meat.  Sycophant,  etymologically 
and  properly,  means  a  fig-shower  ;  miscreant  is  a  misbeliever  ; 
tinsel  means  "  sparkling,"  (Thetis,  with  the  "  tinsel-slippered 
feet,"  Milton) ;  carriage  (Acts  xxi.  15)  means  things  carried  ; 
kindly,  in  the  Litany,  according  to  kind  ;  painful,  involving 
the  taking  of  pains  ;  treacle,  something  made  from  wild  beasts. 
The  German  snhlecht^  bad,  originally  meant  good  ;  selig^  blessed, 
is  the  original  of  our  English  word  silly  ;  the  word  courteous 
has  its  root  in  a  word  which  meant  a  cow-pen. 

2.  The  very  essence  of  the  philological  argument  against  the 
necessity  of  immersion,  turns  upon  this  fact.     If  to  admit  that 


LUTHER'S  ETYMOLOGIES   OF  THE   WORDS.      531> 

Bapto  and  Baptizo  may,  etymologically,  mean  to  dip  in,  is  to 
admit  that,  in  their  actual  use,  they  mean  exclusively  to  dip 
in,  then  the  argument  against  the  Baptists,  on  the  part  of 
many,  is  over. 

3.  The  English  words  Baptism  and  baptize  are  simply  Greek 
words  in  an  English  shape.  As  this  argument  puts  it,  they 
also  mean,  throughout  our  authorized  version  and  our  whole 
usage,  exclusively  immersion,  or  to  immerse.  So  the  Baptists 
contend  as  to  their  etymological  and  native  force ;  but  as  they 
concede  that  such  is  not  the  actual  use  of  them  in  English, 
even  they,  when  they  translate  anew,  give  us  "  immersion  " 
and  "  immerse." 

4.  If  the  interpretation  of  Luther,  we  are  contesting,  stands, 
Luther  was  an  immersionist,  did  teach  that  immersion  is  the 
synonym  of  Baptism  and  is  necessary,  did  hold  the  "  Baptist 

/doctrine  of  immersion  ;  "  but  it  is  admitted  that  Luther  did 
none  of  these,  therefore  this  interpretation  cannot  stand.  The 
argument  makes  Luther  to  be  theoretically  an  immersionist, 
and  only  saved  by  hypocrisy,  or  glaring  inconsistency,  from 
being  an  Anabaptist  in  practice.  The  Martin  Luther  which 
this  new  philology  has  given  us  is  a  disguised  Anabaptist. 
The  positions  are  inconsistent  with  each  other,  and  the  argu- 
ments for  them  self-confuting. 

What  is  the  real  meaning  of  Luther's  words  ?  It  is  that  in 
its  etymological  and  primary  force  (Laut),  the  German  term 
Taufe,  like  the  Greek  baptismos,  the  Latin  jnersio^  means  immer- 
sion, but  he  does  not  say,  and  there  is  abundant  evidence  that 
he  did  not  believe,  that  in  actual  use,  either  Taiife  or  baptis- 
ma  means  exclusively  immersion,  but,  on  the  contrary,  means 
"  washing"  without  reference  to  mode.  We  believe  that  many 
scholars  of  anti-Baptistic  schools  will  concede  that  Luther  was 
right  in  his  position  as  to  etymology,  as  all  intelligent  Baptists 
w^ill,  and  do,  concede  that  the  etymological  and  primary  force 
of  any  word,  may  be  entirely  different  from  that  it  has  in 
actual  use. 

2.  Luther,  in  1519,  drew  the  inference  that  it  w^ould  be 
right  and  desirable  that  the  mode  of  washing  should  conform 
to  the  etymological  and  primary  force,  as  well  as  to  the  actual 


640  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION, 

use  of  the  word.  That  it  would  be  right,  if  the  Church  pre- 
ferred so  to  do,  is,  we  think,  undisputable ;  that  it  is  desirable, 
is,  we  think,  very  doubtful,  and  we  can  prove  that  such  was 
Luther's  attitude  to  the  mode  when  the  Catechisms  were  writ- 
ten. That  immersion  is  necessary,  Luther  denied  in  express 
terms,  in  his  book  on  the  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  same 
period  (1519). 

3.  Luther,  in  1519,  under  the  influence  of  the  Romish  Lit- 
urgy-, and  of  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  believed  that  the 
sj^mbolical  significance  of  Baptism,  as  pointing  to  the  drown- 
ing and  death  of  sin,  though  essentially  unafl:ected  by  the 
mode,  is  yet  brought  out  more  clearly  in  immersion,  and  at 
that  era  so  far  preferred  it.  In  his  later  Biblical  Era,  to  which 
his  Catechism  belongs,  there  is  ample  evidence  that  this  prefer- 
ence was  no  longer  cherished. 

This,  then,  is  in  brief  the  state  of  the  case.  The  point  of 
Luther's  whole  argument,  in  1519,  is,  that  inasmuch  as  immer- 
sion corresponds  with  the  etymology  of  Baptism,  as  well  as  with 
its  actual  general  use,  which  embraces  every  kind  of  washing, 
and  as  a  certain  signification  common  to  all  modes,  is  most 
clearly  brought  out  in  immersion,  it  would  be  right,  and  so  far 
desirable,  that  that  mode,  though  not  necessary,  but  a  matter 
of  Christian  freedom,  should  be  adopted.  Then,  as  always,  he 
placed  the  mode  of  Baptism  among  the  things  indifferent,  and 
would  have  considered  it  heresy  to  make  the  mode  an  article 
of  faith.  In  the  Church  of  Rome,  some  of  the  older  rituals 
positively  prescribe  immersion  ;  and  in  the  ritual  now  set  forth 
in  that  Church,  by  authority,  there  is  a  direction  that, ''  Where 
the  custom  exists  of  baptizing  by  immersion,  the  priest  shall 
immerse  the  child  thrice."  Luther,  in  his  Sermon  in.  1519, 
expresses  his  preference  for  immersion,  not  on  the  ground  of 
any  superior  efficacy,  but  because  of  its  etymology,  antiquity, 
and  significance  as  a  sign:  and  when  he  alludes  to  the  fact 
that  the  children,  in  many  places,  were  not  so  baptized,  he 
does  not  express  the  least  doubt  of  the  validity  of  their 
Baptism. 

In  his  book  on  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  which  appeared 
in  1520,  declaring  his  preference  again  for  the  same  mode,  he 


LITURGIES   OF  LUTHER   AND   LUTH.    CHURCH.      541 

expressly  adds:  "Not  that  T  think  it  (immersion)  necessary."^ 
But  this  claim  of  necessity,  and  this  only,  is  the  very  heart  of 
the  Baptist  doctrine.  The  strongest  expressions  in  favor  of 
immersion  occur  in  Luther's  earliest  works,  and  his  maturer 
preference,  as  expressed  in  later  works,  seem  to  have  heen  no 
less  decided  for  pouring  as  an  appropriate  mode.  Thus  in  his 
Commentary  on  Genesis,  one  of  his  latest  and  ripest  works, 
he  says:  "The  water  which  is  poured  (quee  funditur)  in  Bap- 
tism is  not  the  water  given  by  God  as  the  Creator,  hut  given 
by  God  the  Saviour. "f 

"We  will  now  look  at  the  testimony  furnished  on  the  point  in 
question  by  the  Liturgies  of  Luther  and  the  Lutheran  Church. 

1.  The  Taufbilchleiii  of  Luther,  1523,  is  not  a  Lutheran 
Ritual,   but    avowedly    only   a    translation    of    a 

.  .  Tx         1       1  •  1        -r.  •  '^''®    Liturgies 

Romish  service.  He  declares,  m  the  Preface  to  it,  of  Luther  and  of 
that  there  was  much  in  it  which  he  would  have  the  Lutheran 

Church. 

desired  to  remove,  but  which  he  allowed  to  remain 
on  account  of  the  consciences  of  the  weak,  who  might  have 
imagined  that  he  wished  to  introduce  a  new  Baptism,  and 
might  regard  their  own  Baptism  as  insufficient.  That  in  this 
Ritual,  therefore,  the  direction  given  to  dip  the  child  itauchen) 
only  proves  that  the  particular  Romish  Ritual  followed  by 
Luther  had  that  Rubric. 

2.  Bat  after  this  Translation,  later  in  this  same  year,  1523, 
Luther  issued  his  own  directions  for  Baptism  :  Wie  man  recht 
unci  verstdndlich  einen  Menschen  zum  Christenglauben  taufen 
soll.X  This  document,  in  the  older  editions  of  Luther's  works, 
has  been  erroneously  placed  under  1521.  The  Erlangen  edi- 
tion, the  latest  and  most  critical  ever  issued,  gives  it  its  true 
place,  under  1523.  In  this  direction,  how  rightly  [recht)  and 
intelligently  [verstdndlich)  to  baptize,  Luther  says :  "  The 
person  baptizing  pours  the  water  [geusst  icasser  aifjf),  and 
says,  l^go  Baptizo  te,"  that  is,  in  German,  Ich  tavf  dick  (I  bap- 
tize thee).     Pouring,  and  pouring  alone,  is  described  as  Bap- 

*  De  Captiv.   Babylon.   Eccles.     Jena  Edit.,  II.   273.     "  Non  quod  necesttariiim 
arbitrer." 

f  On  ch.  xxviii.  Vol.  iii.  91. 

X  Leipz.  xxii.  227.     Walch,  s.  2,622.     Erlangen  xxii.  168. 


542  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

tism,  and  positively  prescribed  in  the  only  Ritual  of  Baptism 
which  is  properly  Luther's  exclusive  work. 

3.  In  1529,  the  year  in  which  the  Catechisms  of  Luther 
appeared,  in  which  it  is  pretended  that  "  the  Baptist  doctrine 
of  immersion  "  is  taught,  he  wrote  the  Seventeen  Articles  of 
Schwabach,  or  Torgau,*  which  became  the  basis  of  the  doc- 
trinal Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  In  the  Ninth 
Article  of  these,  he  says  :  We  baptize  with  water  (mit  Wasser)^ 
—  and  Baptism  is  not  mere  miserable  water.,  or  sprinklixg  and 
POURING  [begiessen).^^  Here  again  the  begiesscn^ihQ  applying  of 
the  water  to  the  person,  not  the  immersing  of  the  person  in 
w\ater,  is  exclusively  spoken  of  as  the  mode  of  Baptism. 

4.  In  the  Liturgy  of  Wittenberg,t  Luther's  own  home 
(1542),  dipping  and  pouring  are  placed  on  the  same  footing  in 
every  respect.     "Ins  wasser  tauchen  —  sie  damit  begiessen." 

5.  In  the  Liturgy  of  Halle,  1543,:j:  the  administrator  is 
expressly  left  free  to  use  either  pouring  or  dipping.  "  Zwis- 
chen  dem  Begiessen  und  Eintauchen  wird  die  Wahl  gelassen." 

6.  Bugenhagen,  in  the  conjoined  work  from  Luther  and 
himself  (1542),  designing  to  comfort  mothers  who  had  lost 
their  children,  says  that  Baptism  of  children,  by  pouring,  was 
prevalent  in  the  Lutheran  Churches  of  Germany  (das  begiessen., 
siehet  man  noch  bet  uns  iiber  ganz  Deufschland), 

7.  The  Liturgy  of  the  Palatinate  of  the  Rhine,  etc.,  1556,  of 
which  the  original  edition  lies  before  us,  says  :  "  Whether 
the  child  shall  have  water  poured  on  it  once  or  thrice,  be 
dipped  or  sprinkled,  is  a  matter  of  indifference  (mittelmdssig). 
Yet,  that  all  things  may  be  done  in  the  Chnrch  in  good  order, 
and  to  edification,  we  have  regarded  it  as  proper  that  the  child 
should  not  be  dipped  {gedaucht).,  but  have  the  water  poured 
upon  it  (begossen  xcerdeny  And  in  the  Rubric:  "Then  shall 
the  minister  pour  water  (begiesse)  on  the  child." 

8.  The  Liturgy  of  Austria,  1571,  directs  the  Baptism  to  be 
performed  by  copious  pouring  or  sprinkling.g  The  later  usage 
is  so  well  known,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  multiply  citations. 

*Leipz.  XX.  22.     Walch  xvi.  778.     Erlangcn  xxiv.  321. 

t  Consistorial  Ordnung,  1542  ;   Richter  K.  0.  I.  369.  J  Do.  II.  16. 

^  "  Mit  Wasser  reichlich  begiessen,  besprengen." 


LITURGIES   OF  LUTHER   AND  LUTIL    CHURCH.      543 

We  shall  close  this  part  of  our  discussion  with  the  words  of 
two  well-known  authors  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 
Dr.  Schmucker,  in  his  Popular  Theology,  says,  very  truly :  "  The 
question  is  not  whether  Baptism  by  immersion  is  valid  ;  this 
is  not  doubted.  .  .  But  the  question  is  whether  immersion  is 
enjoined  in  Scripture,  and  consequently  is  an  essential  part  of 
Baptism,  so  that  without  it  no  Baptism  is  valid,  though  it 
contains  every  other  requisite.  On  this  subject  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  ahmys  agreed  with  the  great  majority  of  Christian 
denominations  in  maintaining  the  negative^  and  in  regarding 
the  quantity  of  water  employed  in  Baptism,  as  well  as  the 
mode  of  exhibiting  it,  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordi- 
nance." '•'  The  controversy  on  this  subject  (the  mode  of  apply- 
ino;  water  in  Baptism)  has  always  been  regarded  by  the  most 
enlightened  divines,  inchulhig  Luther^  Melanchthon,  and  Chem- 
nitz, as  of  comparatively  inferior  importance." 

Dr.  Benjamin  Kurtz,  in  his  work  on  Baptism,  after  showing 
very  conclusively  that  Luther  was  not  an  immersionist,  closes 
his  discussion  with  these  words :  "  We  leave  our  readers 
to  judge  for  themselves,  from  the  foregoing  extracts,  wdiat 
amount  of  credit  is  due  to  the  objection  made  by  some  of  our 
Baptist  brethren^  that  Luther  believed  in  the  necessity  of  sub- 
mersion to  the  exclusion  of  effusion^  or  that  he  w^as  not  decidedly 
in  favor  of  children's  being  baptized.  To  our  more  enlightened 
readers  ice  may  owe  an  apology  for  making  our  extracts  so  copious^ 
and  dwelling  so  long  on  this  subject ;  but  the  less  informed^  who 
have  been  assailed  again  and  again  by  this  groundless  objec- 
tion, without  ability  to  refute  it,  will  know  better  how  to 
appreciate  our  eftbrt." 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  show  that  these  views  of  the  mode 
of  Baptism  were  held  by  all  our  old  divines.  A  few  citations 
will  suffice : 

Chemnitz  :  *  "  The  verb  Baptizein  does  not  necessarily  import 
immersion.  For  it  is  used,  John  i.  33,  and  Acts  i.  5,  to  desig- 
nate the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  the  Israelites 
are  said,  1  Cor.  x.  2,  to  have  been  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the 

*0n  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Exam.  Concil.  Trid.  Ed.  1653.  See,  also,  Harmon. 
Evang.  C.  xvi. 


544  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

cloud  and  in  the  sea,  who,  nevertheless,  were  not  immersed 
into  the  sea,  nor  dipped  into  the  cloud.  Wherefore,  Paul,  a 
most  safe  interpreter,  says  that  to  baptize  is  the  same  as  to 
purify  or  cleanse  by  the  laver  of  water  in  the  Word,  Eph.  v. 
26.  W^h ether,  therefore,  the  water  be  used  by  merging,  dip- 
ping, pouring,  or  vsprinkling,  there  is  a  baptizing.  And  even 
the  washing  of  hands,  couches,  and  cups,  in  which  water  was 
employed,  whether  by  merging,  dipping,  or  pouring,  Mark  vii. 
4,  is  called  Baptism,  ^or  in  the  Baptism  instituted  by  Christ, 
is  there  needed  such  a  rubbing  of  the  body  with  water  as  is 
needed  to  remove  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  Since, 
therefore,  our  Lord  has  not  prescribed  a  fixed  mode  of  employ- 
ing the  water,  there  is  no  change  in  the  substantial  of  Bap- 
tism, though  in  difterent  Churches  the  water  is  employed  in 
diflferent  modes." 

Flacius  Illyricus  :  *  ''  Baptizo,  by  metalepsis,  signifies,  to 
icash,  bathe  (abliio,  lavo).  Hence,  Mark  vii.  4,  saj^s  :  '  The  Jews 
have  various  Baptisms  {i.  e.  washings)  of  cups  and  pots ; '  and 
1  Peter  iii.  21,  says:  'Our  Baptism  is  not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh.'  Heb.  vi.  2,  the  word  Baptism  refers 
to  the  purifications  and  washings  under  the  old  dispensation." 

Stephen  Gerlach  \  says  :  "  Herein  Baptism  is  analogous  to 
circumcision,  which,  though  local,  yet  availed,  by  its  internal 
action,  to  render  the  entire  person  acceptable  to  God.  Thus 
the  laver  of  regeneration  and  renewal  is  most  eflicacious, 
whether  the  person  baptized  be  entirely  merged,  or  dipped,  or 
some  portion  only  of  the  body  be  sprinkled,  only  so  that  he  be 
baptized  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Gerhard  :  X  ''' BapHsmos  and  Bap)tizein  are  employed  to  desig- 
nate any  kind  of  ablution,  whether  it  be  done  by  sprinkling, 
pouring,  or  dipping." 

QuENSTEDT :  "Baptism,  in  general,  signifies  washing,  or 
ablution,  whether  it  be  done  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  dipping, 
or  immersion." 

The  question  of  the  outward  mode  in  Baptism,  is  far  less 

*Clavi8,   S.  S.  f  On  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  in  Osiander. 

+  Loci.  Ed.  Cotta  ix.  68. 


INTERNAL  EFFICACY  OF  BAPTISM— C ONTEXT.    54o 

serious  than  the  questions  as  to  the  internal  efficacy  of  Bap- 
tism, its  essence,  its  object,  and  results.  As  closely  connected 
with  the  view  of  our  Church  on  these  points,  we  shall  present 
some  facts  in  connection  with  that  fundamental  i„ternai  em- 
Scriptural    phrase   in   re2:ard   to    Baptism.      Our  cary  of  Baptism. 

.        ,  ....  -^  "Born   of  water 

Saviour  says  to  Nicodemus,  John  iii.  6:  *' Lx-  and  of  the  spirit." 
<^ept  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Does  he  refer 
in  these  words  to  Baptism?  We  think  that  no  one  ever 
could  have  doubted  that  there  is  such  a  reference,  unless  he 
had  some  preconceived  theory  of  Baptism  with  which  the 
natural  meanino*  of  these  words  came  in  conflict.     The  con- 

CD 

text  and  the  text  alike  sustain  and  necessitate  that  interpre- 
tation which  was  the  earliest,  which  was  once  and  for  ages 
universal,  and  to  this  hour  is  the  general  one, —  the  interpre- 
tation which  accepts  these  words  as  setting  forth  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  Baptism.  We  have  said  the  context  proves 
this.  We  will  give  a  few  illustrations  which  seem  to  us  per- 
fectly conclusive  on  this  point :  1.  Baptism,  in  consequence 
of  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  was,  at  the  time  of  the 
interview  between  our  Lord  and  Mcodemus,  the  great  absorb- 
ing matter  of  interest  in  the  nation.  The  baptizing  of  John 
was  the  great  religious  event  of  the  time.  The  subject  of 
Baptism,  in  its  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  the 
grand  question  of  the  hour,  and  there  was  hardly  a  topic  on 
which  Nicodemus  would  be  more  sure  to  feel  an  interest,  and 
on  which  our  Lord  would  be  more  likely  to  speak. 

2.  The  fact  that  John  baptized  was  regarded  as  evidence  that 
he  might  claim  to  be  the  Christ ;  in  other  words,  it  was  a  set- 
tled part  of  the  conviction  of  the  nation  that  the  ^lessiah  would 
baptize,  or  accompany  the  initiation  of  men  into  His  kingdom 
with  the  use  of  water.  "  The  Jews  sent  priests  and  Levites  to 
ask  John,  Who  art  thou  ?  And  he  confessed,  and  denied  not ; 
but  confessed,  I  am  not  the  Christ,"  John  i.  20.  Kot  a  word 
had  they  uttered  to  imply  that  they  supposed  that  he  claimed 
to  be  the  Christ,  but  his  answer,  to  what  he  knew  to  be  their 
thought,  all  the  more  potently  proves  that  it  was  considered 
that  the  Christ  would  baptize,  that  the  beginning  of  His 

35 


M6  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

kingdom  would  be  in  Baptism,  that  Tie  preeminently  would 
be  the  Baptizer.  "  They  asked  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Why 
baptizest  thou,  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ  ?  "  Xicodemus 
came  to  settle  in  his  mind  whether  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
Xothing  would  be  more  sure  to  be  a  question  with  him  than 
this:  Whether  Jesus  would  claim  the  right  to  baptize?  The 
answer  of  John  implied  that  he  baptized  by  authority  of  the 
Messiah,  as  His  divinely  appointed  forerunner  and  provisional 
administrator  of  this  right  of  Baptism,  whose  proper  authority 
lay  in  Christ  alone.  iSTicodemus  would  be  peculiarly  alive  to 
any  allusion  to  Baptism,  would  be  likely  to  understand  as 
referring  to  it  any  words  whose  obvious  meaning  pointed  to 
it,  and  our  Lord  would  the  more  carefully  avoid  whatever 
might  mislead  him  on  this  point. 

3.  John  continually  characterized  his  work  in  this  way : 
"  I  baptize  with  icater,^^  Matt.  iii.  2  ;  Mark  i.  8  ;  Luke  iii.  16  ; 
John  i.  26,  31,  33  ;  Acts  i.  5.  At  this  time,  and  under  all 
these  circumstances,  the  word  "water"  would  be  connected 
specially  with  Baptism. 

4.  John  had  said  of  Jesus,  shortly  before  this  interview  of 
Xicodemus,  Mark  i.  8 :  "  I,  indeed,  have  baptized  you  with 
water ;  but  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  .  .  " 
Here,  before  the  Ruler  of  the  Jews,  was  the  very  person  of 
whom  this  had  been  uttered  ;  and  when  he  takes  up  these 
words  "  water  "  and  "  the  Spirit,"  it  seems  impossible  that 
Xicodemus  should  doubt  their  allusion  to,  and  their  close  par- 
allel with,  John's  words. 

5.  John  had  made  two  kinds  of  utterances  in  regard  to 
Christ's  work,  and  we  beg  the  reader  to  note  the  great  difter- 
ence  between  them,  for  they  have  been  confounded,  and  gross 
misrepresentation  of  them  has  been  the  result. 

The  first  of  these  utterances  we  have  just  given,  Mark  i.  8. 
It  was  made  to  the  body  of  John's  disciples,  and  the  two 
things  he  makes  prominent  are  Baptism  with  water,  and  Bap- 
tism with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  is,  water  and  the  Spirit. 

The  other  utterance,  Matt.  iii.  7-12,  was  made  to  those  to 
whom  he  said  :  "  0  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you 
to  fiee  from  the  wrath  to  come?  "     John  knew  that,  as  a  class, 


INTERNAL  EFFICACY  OF  B A FTIS M—  C 0 NTE XT.    547 

the  Pharisees  and  Saddocees  who  came  to  him  were  unworthy 
of  Baptism,  yet  as  there  were  exceptions,  and  as  he  could  not 
search  hearts,  he  haptized  them  all.  IS'evertheless,  Ije  says : 
"Every  tree  which  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit,  is  hewn 
down  and  cast  into  the  Jiir.  I,  indeed,  baptize  you  with 
water,  but  He  that  cometh  after  me  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fre.  Whose  fan  is  in  His  hand,  and 
He  will  thoroughly  purge  His  floor,  and  gather  the  wheat  into 
His  garner,  but  He  will  burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquenchable 
^r<?."  When  Ave  look  at  these  words  in  their  connection, 
remember  the  class  of  persons  addressed,  and  notice  how  the 
Baptist,  in  the  way  in  which  the  word  "  fire  "  runs,  fixes  its 
meaning  here,  nothing  seems  clearer  than  this,  that  John  has 
in  view  not  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  individual,  but 
His  great  work  in  the  mass,  and  not  His  purifying  power  in 
those  who  are  blessed  by  it,  but  His  purifying  power  shown  in 
the  removal  and  destruction  of  the  evil.  The  wind  created  by 
the  fan  descends  alike  upon  the  wheat  and  the  chafi*;  both  are 
alike  baptized  by  it,  but  with  wholly  different  results.  The 
purifying  power  of  the  air  is  shown  in  both.  It  is  a  single 
act,  indeed,  which  renders  the  wheat  pure  by  removing  the 
impurity  of  the  chaff.  "  You,"  says  the  Saviour  to  the  gener- 
ation of  vipers,  "  sWl  also  be  baptized  witb  the  Holy  Ghost." 
His  work  shall  be  to  separate  you  from  the  wheat.  You,  too, 
shall  be  baptized  with  fire  ;  the  fire  which  destroys  the  impurity 
which  has  been  separated  by  the  Spirit.  See  also  Luke  iii.  9- 
17.  The  addition  of  the  w^ord  "  fire  "  marks,  wdth  awful  sig- 
nificance, what  is  the  distindioii  of  the  Baptism  of  the  wicked  ;  and 
such  an  idea^  as  that  the  children  of  God  are  baptized  with  fire ^  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Kew  Testament.  The  only  thing  that 
looks  like  it  is  Acts  ii.  3,  where  it  is  said,  "There  appeared 
unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of 
them,"  but  the  fire  here  was  symbolical  of  the  character  of  the 
TONGUES  of  the  Apostles,  of  the  ferv^or  with  which  they  glowed, 
and  of  the  light  which  they  shed,  in  the  varied  languages  in 
which  they  spoke.  John  spoke  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  firv^,, 
when  he  addressed  those  who  were  not  to  enter  the  kingd(^m 
of  God.     When   he    addressed    true    disciples,   he   associated 


548  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

water  and  the  Spirit.  When  he  spoke  to  the  former,  it  was 
of  the  Spirit  first,  and  then  of  the  fire.  When  he  speaks  to 
the  latter,  it  is  of  water  first,  and  then  of  the  Spirit  ;  the  one 
class  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  Spirit  and  with  fire,  and  are 
lost ;  the  others  are  baptized  with  water  and  with  the  Spirit, 
and  will  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.  When  John  contrasted 
his  Baptism  with  that  of  the  Saviour,  he  meant  not  this :  I 
baptize  with  water  only,  without  the  Spirit,  and  He  will  bap- 
tize with  the  Spirit  only,  and  not  with  water;  he  meant:  I 
baptize  with  water ;  that  is  all  I  can  do  in  my  own  person,  but 
He  who  in  His  divine  power  works  with  me  now,  and  baptizes 
with  the  provisional  measure  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  will  yet  come 
in  His  personal  ministry,  and  then  He  will  attend  the  Baptism 
of  water,  with  the  full  gospel  measure  of  the  Spirit.  When 
our  Lord,  therefore,  taking  up,  as  it  were,  and  opening  still 
further  the  thought  of  John,  adopts  his  two  terms  in  the  same 
connection  in  which  be  had  placed  them.  He  meant  that  Nico- 
demus  should  understand  by  "  water  "  and  the  "  Spirit  "  the 
outward  part  of  Baptism,  and  that  Divine  Agent,  who  in  it, 
with  it,  and  under  it,  ofters  His  regenerating  grace  to  the  soul 
of  man. 

6.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  Mcoderaus  was  asking  for  a 
fuller  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth.  He  asked : 
''  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  ?  "  The  emphasis  is 
not  on  the  word  "  can  "  alone,  as  if  he  meant  to  express  a 
doubt  of  the  truth  of  our  Saviour's  proposition  ;  the  emphasis 
rests  also  on  the  word  '''•how.'''  He  meant  to  say:  "A  man  can- 
not be  born  again  in  the  natural  sense  and  ordinary  way. 
How^  then,  in  what  sense,  and  by  what  means,  can  he  be  born 
again  ? "  It  is  impossible  that  one  interested  in  grace  itself 
should  not  be  alive  to  its  means.  For  our  Saviour  not  to  have 
made  an  allusion  to  any  of  the  divine  modes,  as  well  as  to  the 
Divine  Agent  of  the  change,  would  seem  to  make  the  reply  a 
very  imperfect  one.  But  if  any  one  of  the  means  of  grace  is 
alluded  to,  the  allusion  is  certainly  in  the  word  "  water;"  and 
admitting  this,  the  inference  will  hardly  be  resisted  that  ^'  Bap- 
tism "  is  meant. 

7.  The  entire  chapter,  after  the  discourse  with  Nicodemus, 


INTERNAL  EFFICACY  OF  BAPTISM-TEXT. 


549 


is  occupied  with  baptisms,  bajytismal  questions,  and   hajjtismal 
discourses. 

a.  In  verse  23,  the  word  ''  water  "  occurs  :  "  John  was  bap- 
tizing in  yEnon,  because  there  was  much  water  there." 

b.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  notice,  that  immediately  following; 
the  conversation  of  our  blessed  Lord  with  IlN'icodemus,  come 
these  words,  "  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
unto  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and 
baptized  J  ^ 

c.  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  came  to  him  and  said: 
"  Rabbi,  he  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  6eAo?^Z  the  same  bap- 
tizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  Then  John  replies:  "Ye 
yourselves  bear  me  witness  that  I  said,  lam  not  the  Christ,  hut 
that  I  am  sent  before  him."  The  authority  for  John's  Bap- 
tism was  secondary,  derived  from  Christ.  Christ  now  takes 
it  into  His  own  hands,  and  prepares  to  endow  it  with  the  ful- 
ness of  the  gifts  of  His  Spirit. 

The  context  of  these  words  demonstrates  that  by  "  water  " 
our  Saviour  meant  Baptism.  The  evidence  of  the  _^  ^^^  ^^^^ 
text  itself  is  equally  decisive  that  this  is  his  mean- 
ing. It  is  conceded  by  all,  that  if  the  word  "  water  "  be  taken 
literally,  it  means  "  Baptism  ;  "  hence,  all  those  who  deny  that 
it  refers  to  Baptism  understand  it  figuratively,  and  in  that  fact 
acknowledge  that  to  prove  that  it  is  to  be  taken  literally,  is  to 
prove  that  it  refers  to  Baptism. 

We  remark,  then, 

1.  That  to  take  the  word  "  water  "  figuratively  makes  an 
incongruity  with  the  idea  of  a  birth.  It  is  said  that  water 
here  is  the  figure  of  the  cleansing  and  purifying  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  there  is  an  incongruity  in  such  an  interpre- 
tation. Had  the  Saviour  meant  this,  he  would  naturally  have 
said:  Except  a  man  be  cleansed,  or  icashed  with  water,  not 
"born  of"  it. 

2.  One  of  the  figurative  interpretations  is  in  conflict  with 
the  evident  meaning  of  the  word  "  Spirit "  here.  For  it  is 
clear  from  the  whole  connection,  that  the  Spirit  here  means 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person.  In  the  next  verse  it  is  said: 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  Spirit,"  and  in  the  8th 


550  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

verse :  "  So  is  every  one  tliat  is  born  of  the  Spirit."  Ko  sonnd 
interpreter  of  any  school,  so  far  as  we  know,  disputes  that  the 
word  "  Spirit,"  in  these  passages,  means  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a 
person  ;  and  nothing  is  more  obvious  than  that  the  word  in 
the  5th  verse  means  just  what  it  does  in  the  following  ones. 
But  if  "  water  "  is  figurative,  then  the  phrase  water  and  Spirit 
means,  in  one  of  the  figurative  interpretations,  "spiritual 
water ; "  that  is,  the  substantive  Spirit  is  used  as  an  adjective, 
and  not  as  the  name  of  a  person.  This  false  interpretation 
makes  the  phrase  mean  "  spiritual  water,"  and  Baptism  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  both  vanish  before  it.  In  its  anxiety  to  read 
Baptism  out  of  the  text,  it  has  read  the  Holy  Spirit  out  of 
it,  too. 

3.  Another  figurative  interpretation  turns  the  words  the 
other  way,  as  if  our  Saviour  had  said :  "  Born  of  the  Spirit 
and  water,"  and  now  it  means  not  that  we  are  to  be  born 
a2:ain  of  "spiritual  water,"  but  that  we  are  to  be  born  again 
of  the  "  aqueous  or  water-like  Spirit."  But  not  only  does  such 
a  meaning  seem  poor  and  ambiguous,  but  it  supposes  the  one 
term,  "  Spirit,"  to  be  literal,  and  the  other,  "  water,"  to  be  fig- 
urative ;  but  as  they  are  governed  by  the  same  verb  and  prepo- 
sition, this  would  seem  incredible,  even  apart  from  the  other 
cogent  reasons  against  it.  In  common  life,  a  phrase  in  which 
such  a  combination  was  made,  would  be  regarded  as  absurd. 

4.  The  term  "to  be  born  of"  leads  us  necessarily  to  the 
same  result. 

a.  The  phrase  is  employed  in  speaking  of  natural  birth,  as 
in  Matt.  i.  16  :  "  Mary  of  whom  icas  horn  Jesus." 

Luke  i.  35  :  "  That  holy  thing  which  shall  he  horn  of  thee, 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  So  in  this  chapter,  "that 
which  is  horn  ofthe  flesh." 

h.  It  is  employed  to  designate  spiritual  birth.  Thus  John 
i.  13  :  "  (the  sons  of  God)  ivcre  horn  not  of  the  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  Here 
no  symbolical  title  is  used,  but  the  literal  name  of  the  Author 
of  the  new  birth.  So  in  this  chapter,  v.  8  :  "  So  is  every  one 
that  is  horn  of  the  Spirit."  John,  in  his  gospel  and  epistles, 
uses  the  phrase  "  to  be  born  of"  fifteen  times.     In  fourteen  of 


THE  PARALLELS.  551 

them,  it  is  not  pretended  that  any  of  the  terms  used  to  desig 
nate  the  cause  of  the  birth  is  symbolical.  The  fifteenth 
instance  is  the  one  before  us. 

The  phrase  to  "  be  born  of"  is  never  connected  elsewhere  in 
the  ITew  Testament  with  terms  indicative  of  the  means  or 
cause  of  birth,  which  are  symbolical  in  their  character.  The 
whole  Kew  Testament  usage  is  in  conflict  with  the  supposition 
that  it  is  here  linked  with  a  symbolical  term. 

"  Born  of  God  "  is  used  some  eight  or  nine  times.  "  Born 
of  the  Spirit  "  is  used  twice,  and  these,  with  the  words  before 
us,  exhaust  the  IN'ew  Testament  use  of  the  phrase. 

Without  the  context,  then,  the  text  itself  would  settle  the 
question,  and  demonstrate  that  our  Lord  referred  to  Baptism. 

The  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  to  Nicodemus  are  the  keynote 
to  the  whole  body  of  ]N"ew  Testament  representa- 
tion  m  regard  to  the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  Bap- 
tism. The  view  which  regards  the  words  "  Born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,"  as  referring  to  Baptism,  is  sustained  and  neces- 
sitated by  the  w^iole  body  of  parallels  in  the  gospels  and 
epistles.     Let  us  look  at  a  few  of  these : 

1.  In  Titus  iii.  5,  Paul,  speaking  of  God  our  Saviour,  says: 
"He  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  the  subject  is  the  same  as  in 
John  iii.  5,  the  new  birth,  or  regeneration.  There  is  a  parallel 
between  "  born  of  God,"  and  "  regeneration,"  and  "  renewing  ;  " 
between  "  water  "  and  "  washing,"  or  laver.  "  The  Spirit  " 
in  the  one  is  parallel  with  "  the  Holy  Ghost "  in  the  other, 
and  "  Entering  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "in  the  one  has 
its  parallel  in  the  other,  in  the  words,  "  He  saved  us."  What 
a  beautiful  comment  does  Paul  make  on  our  Lord's  word  ! 
Take  up  the  w^ords  in  John,  and  ask  Paul  their  meaning. 
What  is  it  to  be  "  born  again  ?  "  Paul  replies,  "  It  is  to  expe- 
rience regeneration  and  renewing."  What  is  the  "  water,"  of 
w^hich  our  Lord  says  Ave  must  be  born?  It  is  the  washing  of 
regeneration.  What  is  the  Spirit?  Paul  replies,  "The  Holy 
Spirit."  What  is  it  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  It  is  to  be 
Baved. 

2.  Ephes.  V.  26 :  "  Christ  loved  the  Church  and  gave  Him- 


552  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 

self  for  it,  that  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  wash- 
ing of  water  by  the  "Word."  In  these  words  the  new  birth 
is  represented  as  sanctifying  and  cleansing;  the  "  w^ater "  is 
expressly  mentioned  ;  to  be  "  born  of  water  "  is  explained  as  a 
''  sanctifying  and  cleansing  with  the  washing  of  water,"  and 
the  "  AVord  "  as  a  great  essential  of  Baptism  and  organ  of  the 
Iloly  Spirit  in  it,  is  introduced. 

3.  Hebrews  x.  21 :  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in 
full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water." 
Here  Baptism  is  regarded  as  essential  to  having  a  true  heart 
and  full  assurance  of  faith,  and  the  mode  in  wdiich  "  w^ater  "  is 
used  is  defined  in  the  words,  "  having  our  bodies  washed  with 
pure  water." 

4.  In  1  John  v.  6-8,  speaking  of  Jesus:  "This  is  He  that 
came  by  water  and  blood,  not  by  icate.r  only,  but  by  water  and 
blood.  And  it  is  the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  because  the 
Spirit  is  truth.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  on 
earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood."  Here  is  a 
most  decisive  confutation  by  John  himself  of  the  glosses  put 
upon  his  Master's  words.  They  demonstrate  that  "water" 
and  "  Spirit  "  are  not  one.  "  There  are  three  that  bear  witness, 
the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood." 

5.  The  parallel  in  St.  Peter  is  also  very  important.  1  Pet. 
lii.  21,  22:  "The  Ark,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls  w^ere 
saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  Baptism  doth 
now  save  us."  The  water  lifted  the  Ark  above  it,  away  from 
the  death  which  overwhelmed  the  world.  It  separated  the 
eight  souls  from  the  lost,  and  saved  them  while  it  destroyed 
the  others.  Here  the  Apostle,  speaking  of  "  souls  saved  by 
water,"  declares  that  Baptism,  in  such  sense,  corresponded 
with  the  deluge,  that  we  say  of  it  also,  "It  saves  h6-,"  — the 
implication  being  irresistible  — that  the  wdiole  thought  in- 
volved is  this:  in  the  Church,  as  in  the  Ark,  souls  are  saved 
by  water,  that  is,  by  Baptism.  Having  said  so  great  a  thing 
of  Baptism,  the  Apostle  adds  :  "  Kot  the  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  fiesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God."'     That  is,  it  is  not  as  a  mere  outward  purifier,  or  cere- 


THE  PARALLELS.  553 

mouial  washing,  Baptism  operates.  Its  gracious  effects  are 
conditioned  on  the  state  of  the  heart  of  him  to  whom  they  are 
offered.  He  wlio  in  faith  accepts  Baptism  in  its  purifying 
energy  through  the  Spirit  of  God,  also  receives  it  in  its  saving 
result. 

6.  The  w^ords  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  elsewhere,  fully  sustain  the 
view  which  the  Church  takes  of  His  meaning  in  John  iii.  5. 
In  his  final  commission  he  charges  the  Apostles  "  to  baptize  " 
the  nations.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  and  connects  with  it  the  promise : 
"  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ; "  and  adds : 
"  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  Mark  xvi.  16. 
These  words  should  be  pondered.  We  are  not  to  separate 
what  God  hath  joined  together.  Who  shall  be  saved?  First, 
He  only  that  believeth.  That  is  decisive  against  the  idea  that 
Sacraments  operate  apart  from  the  spiritual  state  of  the  recipi- 
ent. It  is  a  death-blow  to  formalism  —  a  death-blow  to  Rome 
and  to  Oxford.  We  are  justified  by  faith;  that  is  w^ritten 
with  a  sunbeam  in  the  words :  "  He  that  believeth  .  .  shall  be 
saved."  But  is  that  all  the  Saviour  said?  ^o  1  He  adds: 
"  AND  IS  BAPTIZED,  shall  be  saved."  Who  dares  read  a  "  not  " 
in  the  words,  and  make  our  Saviour  say,  "  He  that  believeth, 
and  is  not  baptized,  shall  be  saved  "  ?  But  the  man  who  says, 
"  Baptism  is  in  no  sense  necessary  to  salvation,"  does  contradict 
the  words  of  our  Lord.  But  if  it  be  granted  that  in  any  sense 
our  Lord  teaches  that  Baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  then 
it  makes  it  highly  probable  that  the  same  doctrine  is  asserted 
in  John  iii.  5.  The  reader  wall  please  notice  that  we  are  not 
now  attempting  to  settle  the  precise  meaning  of  either  the 
words  in  John  or  the  parallels.  Our  question  now  simply  is, 
What  is  the  subject  when  our  Saviour  speaks  of  water  and  the 
Spirit  ? 

7.  In  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  the  doctrines  of  our  Lord, 
of  the  necessity  in  some  sense  (we  are  not  inquiring  now  in 
what  sense  or  with  what  limitations,)  of  Baptism  to  salvation, 
was  ever  present.  When  the  multitudes  said  to  Peter,  and  to 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we 
do?"  then  Peter  said  unto  them,  "Eepent,  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  for 


654  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  remission  of  sins,  and  je  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Xow,  mark  —  first,  that  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  separately  spoken  of,  as  in  John  iii.  5  ;  second,  that  Bap- 
tism is  represented  as  a  means  or  condition  of  receiving  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  third,  that  besides  repentance  Bap- 
tism is  enjoined  as  necessary  ;  fourth,  that  it  is  clearly  set  forth 
as  in  some  sense  essential  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

8.  The  Apostles  and  other  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  bap- 
tized all  persons :  "  VYhen  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  were  baptized,'' 
Acts  viii.  12.  When  Philip  preached  Jesus  to  the  eunuch,  he 
said :  "  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  "  And  Philip 
said,  ''  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest  ;  " 
not,  as  some  would  sa}'  now,  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine 
heart,  there  is  no  need  of  being  baptized."  Thus,  Lydia  and 
her  household ;  the  jailer  and  his  household.  Xo  matter 
where  or  when  the  Spirit  of  God  wrought  His  w^ork  in  men, 
they  were  baptized,  as  if  for  some  reason,  and  in  some  sense  it 
was  felt  that  this  was  necessary  to  an  entrance  on  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

9.  Ananias  said  to  Saul,  after  announcing  to  him  the  com- 
mission which  God  gave  him  :  "  And  now,  why  tarriest  thou  ? 
Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord,"  Acts  xxii.  16.  Here  Baptism  is  represented 
as  necessary,  in  some  sense.,  even  to  a  converted  man,  as  a  means, 
in  some  sense,  of  washing  away  sins. 

10.  As  resonances  of  the  wonderful  words  of  our  Lord,  we 
have  the  Apostle's  declaration  :  ''  So  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  His  death,  there- 
fore, we  are  buried  with  Him,  by  Baptism,  into  death.  By 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body.  For  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ." 

Thus  comparing  God's  Word  with  itself  do  we  reach  a  sure 
ground.  Context,  text,  and  parallel,  the  great  sources  of  a 
sound  interpretation  of  the  living  oracles,  all  point  to  one 
result,  in  determining  what  our  Lord  spoke  of  when  he  said : 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 


RESORTS   OF  INTERPRETER S—IIENDIADY S.     555 

The  form  of  speech  to  which  recourse  has  most  frequently 
been  had  here  to  put  a  figure  into  the  words,  is  that  which 
is  called  "  IIendiadys  ; "  that  is,  the  phrase  in  which  one 
(hen)  is  presented  by  (dia)  tm  (dys).  That  is  to  ^  ,,.,,^  ^^^^^^ 
sav,  two  nouns  are  used  where  one  noun  would  ^'f  iuterpreters. 
answer,  if  the  idea  of  the  other  were  presented  in 
an  adjective  form.  Thus  Virgil  says  :  "  We  offered  drink  in 
bowls  and  gold;"  that  is,  in  golden  bowls,  or  bowl-shaped 
gold.  By  this  hendiadys,  the  Saviour  is  said  here  to  have 
meant  "  spiritual  water,"  or  "  the  water-like  Spirit." 

Xow  let  us  look  at  this  "  hendiadys  "  by  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  set  aside  the  natural  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  words. 
"We  remark : 

1.  That  after  a  careful  search,  we  cannot  find  a  solitary 
instance  (leaving  this  out  of  question  for  a  moment)  in  which 
it  is  supposed  that  the  Saviour  used  the  form  of  speech  known 
as  hendiadys.     It  was  not  characteristic  of  him. 

2.  I^either  is  it  characteristic  of  John  the  Evangelist,  whose 
style  is  closely  formed  upon  that  class  of  our  Lord's  discourses 
which  he  records  in  his  Gospel. 

3.  Kor  is  it  characteristic  of  the  style  of  any  of  the  ^ew 
Testament  writers.  But  three  instances  of  it  are  cited  in  the 
entire  I^ew  Testament  by  Glass  in  his  Sacred  Philology,  and  in 
every  one  of  those  three,  the  language  is  more  easily  inter- 
preted without  the  hendiadys  than  with  it.  AViner,  the  high- 
est authority  on  such  a  point,  says,  in  regard  to  hendiadys  in 
the  E'ew  Testament :  "  The  list  of  examples  alleged  does  not, 
w^hen  strictly  examined, /^(r/uVi  one  that  is  unquestionable."* 

4.  The  passage  in  Matt.  iii.  11 :  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  is  the  only  one  in  which  it  is 
pretended  that  a  parallel  is  found  with  the  one  before  us ;  but 
we  have  shown  in  a  former  part  of  this  Dissertation,  that  there 
is  no  hendiadys  here ;  the  fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  distinct 
subjects.  The  persons  addressed  were  neither  to  be  baptized 
exclusively  with  the  Holy  Spirit-like  fire,  or  the  fire-like  Holy 
Spirit,  but  just  as  our  Lord  says,  with  both;  with  the  Holy 

*Gramm.  of  N.  T.  Diction.  Transl.  by  Masson.  Smith,  English  &  Co.  18-39. 
p.  652.     Seventh  Ed.  by  LUnemann.   (Thayer.)  Andover.   Draper.   1869.  p.  630. 


556  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

Spirit  and  with  fire  — the  former,  in  His  personality,  separating 
them  as  the  breath  of  the  purifier's  fan,  and  the  hitter  con- 
Buming  them  as  tlie  purifier's  flame. 

5.  But  we  liave  a  little  more  to  say  in  regard  to  this  hen- 
diadys  ;  and  that  is,  that  if  we  even  concede  that  it  is  used 
here,  it  does  not  help  the  figurative  interpretation  at  all.  For 
look  at  its  real  character  a  moment.  Hendiadys  does  not  afl:ect 
at  all  the  question  of  the  literalness  or  figurativeness  of  the 
terms  embraced  in  it  ;  it  does  not  change  their  meaning^  but 
simply  their  form.  Take,  for  example,  the  illustration  w^e 
gave  from  Yirgil :  "  bowds  "  and  "  gold  "  are  both  literal ;  and 
to  have  "  golden  bowls,"  you  must  have  literal  gold  as  well  as 
literal  bowls  ;  not  gold  analogous  to  a  bowl,  or  a  bowl  like  to 
gold.  So  Lucan  says  of  a  horse  :  "  He  champed  the  brass  and 
the  bit ;  "  that  is,  the  brass-formed  bit ;  but  the  brass  was  real, 
and  the  bit  was  real ;  it  does  not  mean  the  brass-like  bit,  or 
the  bit-like  brass.  So,  in  Acts  xiv.  13,  it  is  said  that  the 
expression  "  oxen  and  garlands,"  is  a  hendiadys,  and  means 
"garlanded  oxen.''  AYe  are  not  sure  that  it  does;  but  if  it 
does,  it  means  there  were  literally  garlands  and  literally  oxen. 
Oxen  is  not  figurative,  meaning  strength,  of  which  the  ox  is  a 
symbol ;  nor  does  "  garlands  "  mean  "  honored,"  though  gar- 
lands are  an  image  of  honor.  It  does  not  mean  that  they 
brought  honored  strength,  or  strong  honor,  to  the  gates ;  but 
hendiadys  or  no  hendiadys,  it  involves  equally  that  there  were 
oxen  and  garlands.  So  here,  even  supposing  a  hendiadys,  we 
must  none  the  less  have  literally  water,  and  literally  the  Spirit. 

The  only  thing  hendiadys  proves,  is,  that  the  things  it 
involves  are  not  separated ;  and  if  w^e  suppose  a  hendiadys 
here,  it  leaves  both  the  water  and  the  Spirit  as  literal  terms, 
and  only  involves  this,  that  the^^  are  conjoined  in  the  one  birth. 
In  other  words,  hendiadys  only  makes  a  slight  bend  in  the 
route,  and  brings  us  after  all  to  the  same  result  as  the  most 
direct  and  artless  interpretation,  to  wit,  that  our  Saviour 
referred  to  Baptism  in  His  words  to  Xicodemus. 

Another  resort,  more  extreme  than  the  one  we  have  just 
disposed  of,  is  that  of  the  Epexegesis,  that  is  to  suppose  that 
the  "  A.yD  "  gives  the  words  this  force:  "  Born  of  water,  that 


IS  BAPTISM  NECESSARY  TO   SALVATION?       bll 

IS  TO  SAY,  of  tlie  Spirit."'  It  is  contended  that  it  is  parallel  to 
such  an  expression  as  this:  "God  and  our  Father,"  which 
means:  "  God,  that  is  to  say^  our  Father."  In  the  epexegesis, 
one  thing  is  spoken  of  in  more  than  one  aspect,  and,  hence, 
under  more  than  one  term.  For  instance,  in  tlie 
phrase  we  have  quoted :  "  God  and  our  Father 
means:  That  Being  who  is  God, as  to  his  nature, and  Father, a-s 
to  his  relation  to  us,  God  essentially,  and  Father  relatively;  in  a 
word,  both  God  and  Father.  It  does  not  make  the  term  God 
metaphorical,  and  the  term  Father  the  literal  suhstitute  for  it. 
If  an  epexegesis,  therefore,  were  supposable  in  John  iii.  5,  the 
phrase  could  only  mean :  Born  of  that  which  is  water,  as  to 
its  outer  part,  and  Spirit,  as  to  its  internal  agent,  that  is,  both 
water  and  Spirit.  It  is,  therefore,  of  no  avail  to  resort  to  the 
epexegesis  here,  even  if  it  were  allowable.  But  it  is  not  allow- 
able. There  is  not  an  instance,  so  far  as  we  know,  in  human 
language,  in  which  a  noun  used  metaphorically  is  conjoined 
by  a  simple  "  and  "  with  a  term  w^iich  is  literal  and  is  meant 
to  explain  it.  In  a  word,  the  resorts  of  a  false  interpretation, 
which  are  sometimes  very  specious,  utterly  fail  in  this  case. 
Our  Lord  has  fixed  the  sense  of  his  words  so  surely,  that  the 
unprejudiced  who  w^eigh  them  calmly  cannot  be  at  a  loss  as  to 
their  meaning. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  (Art.  IX.  1)  declares  that  Baptism 
"is  necessary  to  salvation."  Is  it  justified  in  so  j^  B^iptism 
doing  ?  Can  we  accept  a  statement  apparently  so  "^ 
sweeping?     Is  it  a  Scripture  statement? 

In  order  properly  to  answer  these  questions,  it  is  necessary 
to  determine  w^hat  the  Confessors  meant.  In  all  human  writ- 
ings, and  in  the  Book  of  God,  occur  propositions  apparently 
universal',  which  are,  nevertheless,  in  the  mind  of  the  writer, 
limited  in  various  ways.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  propo- 
sition of  our  Confession  ?  Is  it  absolute,  and  without  excep- 
tions, and  if  it  meant  to  allow  exceptions,  what  are  they? 
The  first  question  we  naturally  ask,  in  settling  the  meaning 
of  our  Confession,  is,  What  is  Baptism? 

The  Platform,  in  defining  ichat  Baptism  it  supposes  the 
Church   to    connect   with    salvation,  designates   it    as    "such 


ipcessary  to 
vatiun  ? 


558  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

WATER  Baptism."  But  what  our  Church  affirms  of  the  bless- 
ings of  Baptism,  she  does  not  affirm  of  "  water  Baptism," 
that  is,  of  the  application  of  water  jKr  se.  The  total  efficacy 
of  the  Sacraments  is  defined  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  (Art. 

1.  What  is  Bap-  ^-  2),  thus,  that  through  them  and  the  word,  "as 
t'8m?  instruments,  or  means,  God  gives  His  Holy  Spirit, 

who  worketh  faith."  It  would  at  once  remove  much  of  the 
grossest  prejudice  against  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  if  it 
were  known  and  remembered  that  the  Baptism  of  whose  bless- 
ings she  makes  her  affirmation,  embraces  not  merely  the  exter- 
nal element,  but  yet  more,  and  pre-eminently,  the  word  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  She  regards  it  as  just  as  absurd  to  refer  any 
blessings  to  Baptism,  as  her  enemies  define  it,  as  it  would  be  to 
attribute  to  swords  and  guns  the  power  of  fighting  battles 
without  soldiers  to  wield  them. 

Her  first  lesson  on  the  subject  is :  "  Baptism  is  not  mere 
water,"  (Cat.  Min.,  361,  2).  "  Wherefore,"  says  Luther  (Cat. 
Maj.,  487,  15),  "it  is  pure  knavery  and  Satanic  scoffing,  that 
now-a-days  these  new  spirits,  in  order  to  revile  Baptism,  sepa- 
rate from  it  the  Word  and  institution  of  God,  and  look  upon 
it  as  if  it  were  mere  water  from  the  well,  and  then,  with  their 
childish  drivelling,  ask,  '  What  good  can  a  handful  of  water  do 
the  soul  ? '  Yes,  good  friend,  who  does  not  know  that  when 
you  separate  the  parts  of  Baptism,  water  is  water?  "  "  Bap- 
tism cannot  be  sole  and  simple  water  (do.  26),  mere  water  can- 
not have  that  powe-r."  "  Xot  by  virtue  of  the  water"  (do.  29). 
"Not  that  the  water  (of  Baptism)  is  in  itself  better  than  any 
other  water,"  (do.  14.)  So  in  the  Smalcald  Articles  :  "  We  do 
not  hold  with  Thomas  and  the  Dominican  friars,  who,  forget- 
ful of  the  word  and  the  institution  of  God,  say.  That  God  has 
conferred  a  spiritual  power  on  water,  which  washes  away  sin 
through  the  water  "  (320,  2^ 

"  Baptism,"  says  Gerhard,"^  "  is  the  washing  of  water  in  the 
Word,  by  which  washing  the  whole  adorable  Trinity  purifieth 
from  sin  him  who  is  baptized,  not  by  the  work  wrought  {ex  opere 
opcrato)  but  by  the  effectual  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost  coming 
upon  him,  and  by  his  ownfaith,^'    Such  is  the  tenor  of  all  the 

*  Loci  (Cotta)  ix.  318. 


REGENERATION  NOT  PRECEDED   BY  BAPTISM.     559 

definitions  our  Church  gives  of  Baptism,  from  the  simple  ele- 
mentary statements  of  the  Catechism  up  to  the  elahorate  defini 
tions  of  the  great  doctrinal  systems. 

The  assumption,  then,  that  what  the  Church  says  of  Bap- 
tism, she  affirms  of  mere  water  Baptism,  rests  on  a  fundamen- 
tal misapprehension.  Whatever  is  wrought  in  Baptism,  is 
wrought  hy  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  Word,  with  the 
water,  in  the  believing  soul. 

"  That  some  adults,  hy  actual  impenitence,  hypocrisy,  and 
obstinacy,  deprive  themselves  of  the  salutary  effi-  2.  Baptism  is 
cacy  of  Baptism,  we  freely  admit."     Gei-hard  (IX.  ZTl7lZ 

X70).  enition.     Regen- 

Just  as  clear  as  they  are  in  their  judgment  that  wTj-r"  preceded 
Baptism  is  not  necessarily  followed  by  regeneration,  '^'y  baptism. 
are  our  Church  and  her  great  divines  in  the  judgment  that 
regeneration  is   not  necessarily  preceded  by  Baptism,  or   at- 
tended by  it. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  (Art.  V.)  declares  the  gospel  (as 
well  as  the  Sacraments)  to  be  the  means  whereby  the  Holy 
Ghost  works  and  confers  faith,  and  (Art.  YII.)  presents  the 
gospel  purely  preached  (as  well  as  the  Sacraments)  as  that 
whereby  the  true  Church  is  marked-  out  and  made.  "  As  we 
come  alone  through  the  Word  of  God  to  God,  and  are  justi- 
fied, and  no  man  can  embrace  the  Word  but  by  faith,  it  fol- 
lows that  by  faith  we  are  justified."  Apol.  99,  68.  "The 
natural  man  is,  and  remains,  an  enemy  of  ^God,  until,  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  Word  preached  and 
heard,  he  is  converted,  endowed  with  faith,  regenerated  and 
renewed."  Form.  Concord,  589,  5.  "  We  cannot  obey  the 
law  unless  we  are  born  again  through  the  gospel."  Apol. 
Conf.  140,  190.  "  Faith  alone  brings  us  to  a  new  birth."  Do. 
119,  61.  "This  faith  alone  justifies  and  regenerates."  Do. 
138,  171.  "  Regeneration  is  wrought  by  faith  in  repentance." 
Do.  253.  "When,  therefore,"  says  Gerhard,'^  "they  are  bap- 
tized, who  have  already  been  regenerated  through  the  Word, 
as  a  spiritual  seed,  they  have  no  need  of  regeneration  through 
Baptism,  but  in  them  Baptism  is  a  confirmation  and  sealing 
of  regeneration." 

*  Loc.  viii.  325. 


560  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

AVhen  Xicodemus  asked,  "  IIow  can  a  man  be  born  when 

he  is  old?  "  Jesus  replied,  "  Of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  and 

extends  the  proposition   to  all  ''  that  which  is  born  of  the 

flesh  ; "  that  is,  to  "  all  men  after  the  fall  of  Adam,  who  are 

,     born   in  the  course  of  nature."     (A.  C,  Art.  II.) 

3.  Mpii  may  be  \  '  ^^ 

unbapiized  and  The  nccesslty  of  the  new  birth  lie  clearly  predi- 
besave.  catcs  upou  thc  fact  that  the  flesh,  which  is  such 

by  virtue  of  fleshly  birth,  requires  this  change. 

That  in  John  iii.  5,  water  means  Baptism,  the  Platform 
concedes :  "  The  language  of  the  Saviouf ,  doubtless^  refers  also 
to  JBcqyfism.^'  But  even  critics  who  deny  this,  concede  that  in 
John  iii.  6,  man  is  contemplated  as  the  subject  of  original  sin. 
Those  who  concede  this  (and  this  all  concede),  and  who  concede 
that  "  water  "  means  Baptism  (and  this  the  Platform  concedes), 
concede  that,  not  only  in  the  phraseology,  but  in  the  connec- 
tion,'application,  and  argument  of  that  phraseology,  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  is  perfectly  justified  by  the  Saviour's  language, 
when  it  says  (Art.  II.)  "  this  original  sin  "  ("  that  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ")  '^  brings  now  also  eternal  death  " 
("  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ")  "  to  those  Avho  are  not 
born  again  of  Baptism  ('  water ')  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  If 
the  case  is  made  out  from  these  words,  against  the  Confession 
of  the  Church,  it  is  also  made  out  against  the  Saviour,  to  whose 
words  it  so  closely  adheres.  The  dilemma,  then,  is  irresistible, 
either  that  both  teach  it,  or  that  neither  does.  As  regards  the 
effectual  overthrow  of  their  own  position,  it  matters  little 
which  horn  the  objectors  take.  If  they  take  the  one,  then,  on 
their  own  concession,  the  Saviour  teaches  Baptismal  regenera- 
tion ;  if  they  take  the  other,  on  their  own  concession,  the  Con- 
fession does  not  teach  Baptismal  regeneration.  Is,  then,  the 
inference  warranted,  that  our  Saviour,  in  His  words,  and  our 
Confession,  in  its  use  of  them,  mean  to  affirm  an  absolute  and 
unconditional  necessity,  that  a  man  shall  be  born  of  water, 
before  he  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  ^Ve  reply,  that 
neither  the  Saviour  nor  the  Confession  meant  to  affirm  this, 
but  simply  an  ordiimri/  necessity.  "  The  necessity  of  Baptism 
is  not  ^t66'o//(^^,  but  ordinary."  (Gerhard  IX.  383.)  Bellarmine 
had  argued  from  John  iii.  5,  for  the  Romish  doctrine,  that 


ARE   UNBAPTIZED  INFANTS  SAVED?  561 

unbaptized  infants  are  lost.  Gerhard  fIX.  287)  replied:  "1. 
The  warning  of  Christ  bears  not  upon  the  privation  of  the 
Sacrament,  but  the  contempt  of  it.  2.  He  describes  the  ordi- 
nary rale,  from  which  cases  of  necessit}^  are  excepted.  AVe 
are  bound  to  the  use  of  the  means,  but  God  may  show  His 
grace  in  extraordinary  ways." 

How  touchingly  and  consolingly  Luther  wrote  upon  this 
topic  is  known  to  all  admirers  of  his  writings.  ^  ^^^  ^,_,^^^j^_ 
Bugenhagen,  in  the  admirable  Treatise  already  ti/d  infants 
referred  to,  which  is  incorporated  in  Luther's 
Works,  and  was  issued  with  a  Preface  b}-  him,  shows  at  large 
that  neither  to  infants  nor  adults  is  the  necessity  of  Baptism 
absolute.  "  Rather  should  we  believe  that  the  prayers  of 
pious  parents,  or  of  the  Church,  are  graciously  heard,  and  that 
these  children  are  received  by  God  into  His  favor  and  eternal 
life." 

On  the  whole  dark  question  of  the  relation  of  the  heathen 
world  to  salvation,  the  early  writers  of  our  Church  generally 
observe  a  wise  caution.  Yet  even  in  the  school  of  the  most 
rigid  orthodoxy  we  find  the  breathings  of  tender  hope.  "  It 
is  false,"  says  Mentzer,*  "  that  original  sin  in  infants  out  of 
the  Church  is  an  adequate  cause  of  reprobation ;  for  men  are 
never  said  in  Scripture  to  be  reprobated  on  that  account  solely. 
But  as  faith  alone  justifies  and  saves,  so  also,  as  Luther  says, 
unbelief  alone  condemns." 

•^gidius  Hunnius,  whom  Gerhard  pronounced  the  most 
adm.irable  of  the  theologians  of  his  period,  and  of  whom 
another  great  writer  affirms,  that  by  universal  consent  he 
holds  the  third  place  of  merit  after  Luther,  says  -.f  "  I  would 
not  dare  to  affirm  that  the  little  children  of  heathen,  without 
distinction,  are  lost,  for  God  desireth  not  the  death  of  any  — 
Christ  died  for  them  also,"  etc. 

Our  Church,  then,  does  not  teach  that  Baptism  "  is  neces 
sarily  and  unavoidably  attended  by  spiritual  regeneration,' 
but  holds  that  a  man  may  be  baptized,  and  remain  then  and 
forever  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bonds  of  iniquity, 

*  Oper.  I.  959,  quoted  in  Gerhard.     Cotta. 
fin  Quaest.  in  Cap.  VII.  Gen.,  quoted  in  Gerhard  IX.  284. 
86 


■562  COXSERVATIVE     RE  FORM  ATI  OX. 

and  therefore  holds  as  heartily  and  fully  as  the  Platform  * 
"  that  Baptism  in  adults  does  not  necessarily  effect  or  secure 
their  regeneration." 

In  the   next   place,  our    Church    regards   Baptism    not   as 

5.  Bapti.mnot  ''  csseiitial  "  in  its  proper  sense,  but  as  "  necessary." 
essential.  That  which  is  properly  "  essential,"  allows  of  no 
degree  of  limitation ;  but  that  which  is  "  necessary,"  may  be 
so  in  various  degrees  with  manifold  limitations.  It  is  "  a- 
sentiaV  to  our  redemption  that  Christ  should  die  for  us; 
therefore,  without  limits  of  any  kind,  we  affirm  that  no 
human  being  could  be  saved  without  His  atoning  woi-k.  It 
is  "  necessary  "  that  we  should  hear  the  gospel,  for  it  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  ;  but  the  necessity  of  hearing 
is  limited  in  various  ways.  It  does  not  comprehend  both 
infants  and  adults,  as  that  which  is  essential  does. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  (Art.  I.X.)  says,  not  that  Baptism 
,   „,  is   essential,  but  simply  that  it  is  necessary  —  to 

6.  But  neces-  7  x    t/  *> 

sary.  which  the  Latin,  not  to  show  the  degree  of  neces- 

sity, but  merely  its  object.^  adds  "  to  salvation.'' 

In  later  editions  of  the  Confession,  Melanchthon,  to  remove 
the  possibility  of  misconstruction,  added  a  few  words  to  the 
first  part  of  the  Xinth  Article,  so  that  it  reads :  "  Of  Baptism, 
they  teach  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation,  as  a  ceremony  insti- 
tuted of  Christ,''  So  far,  at  least,  we  think  all  could  go  in 
affirming  its  necessity.  And  with  such  mild  expressions,  even 
those  who  were  most  remote  from  the  Melanchthonian  spirit 
were  satisfied. 

"  Among  all  orthodox  Lutherans,  Hutter  is  among  the  most 
orthodox  ;  no  one  has  remained  more  thoroughly  within  the 
bounds  of  the  theology  authorized  and  made  normative  by  the 
Church  than  he  —  no  one  has  adhered  with  more  fidelity,  not 
merely  to  the  spirit,  but  to  the  very  letter  of  the  Symbols, 
especially  of  the  Form  of  Concord. "f  Yet  Hutter  exhausts, 
in  the  following  answer,  the  question  :  "  Is  Baptism  necessary 
to  salvation  ?  "  ''  It  is  ;  and  that  because  of  God's  command. 
For  whatever  God  has  instituted  and  commanded,  is  to  be 
done,  is  precious,  useful,  and  necessary,  though  as  to  its  out- 

*  p.  20.  t  Ilerzog's  Encyclop.  fuer.  Theol.  VI.  346. 


BAPTISM  NECESSARY— NOT  V  NC  0  NI)  IT  TO  NA  L  L  V.  503 

ward  form  it  be  viler  than  a  straw."*  So  niucli  and  no  more 
does  this  great  theologian  say  of  the  necessity  of  Baptism  in  his 
Compend.  Later  theologians  have  properly  given  prominence 
to  its  necessity  as  a  mean,  bat  never  have  ascribed  to  it  a  neces- 
sity }7e)^  se. 

For,  finally,  on  this  point,  the  Church  never  has  held,  but 
has   ever   repudiated   the    idea    that   Baptism    is     7.  wt  not  un- 
'' unconditioiiaUy  essential"  or   necessary  "to   sal-  '^^n'^^tionaiiy. 
vation." 

She  has  limited  the  necessity,  first  of  all,  by  the  " possibiliti/ 
of  having  it  "  —  has  declared  that  it  is  not  absoluteh/ necessary , 
and  that  not  the  deprivation  of  Baptism,  but  the  contempt  of 
it  condemns  a  manf  —  that  though  God  binds  us  to  the  means, 
as  the  ordinary  instruments  of  His  grace.  He  is  not  Himself 
limited  by  them.:j:  She  teaches,  moreover,  that  all  the  bless- 
ings of  Baptism  are  conditioned  on  faith.     C.  M.,  490  :  33  -  3(j. 

The  "  Shorter  Catechism  "  of  Luther  teaches  that  what- 
ever Baptism  gives,  it  gives  alone  to  those  "  who  believe  that 
which  the  Word  and  promises  of  God  assure  us  of."  "The 
water  cannot  do  such  a  great  thing,  but  it  is  done  by  the 
Word  of  God,  and  faith  which  believes  the  Word  of  God, 
added  to  the  water."  We  shall  not  give  the  reference  for  this, 
as  even  the  little  children  are  supposed  to  know  it  by  heart, 
nor  stultify  ourselves  or  our  readers  by  adducing  authorities 
for  the  catechetical  doctrines  of  our  Church. 

The  Lutheran  Church  holds  that  Baptism  is  necessary  to 
salvation,  inasmuch  as  God  has  commanded  it,  and  obedience 
to  His  commands  is  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and,  furthermore, 
because  He  has  appointed  Baptism,  as  one  ordinary  and  posi- 
tive channel  of  His  grace,  through  which  channel  we  are  to 
seek  the  grace  He  offers.  But  our  Church  denies  that,  where 
the  command  cannot  be  carried  out,  because  of  a  necessity 
which  is  of  God's  creating,  the  lack  of  the  sacrament  involves 
the  loss  of  the  soul. 

On  the  more  difficult  question,  whether  infants  born  out  of 
the  Church  are  saved,  many  of  our  old  divines,  of  the  strictest 

*  Compendium  Loc.  XX.  3.     This  answer  is  taken  fiom  Luther's  Larg.  Cat. 
t  Luther's  Werke:  Leipz.  Edit.  XXIL  400-422.  t  ^^-  P-  ^^2. 


564  CONSERVATIVE   EE  FORM  ATI  OX. 

Bcliool,  have  maintained,  as  we  have  already  seen,*  that  it 
would  be  harsh  and  cruel  to  give  over,  absolutely,  to  condem- 
nation, the  infants  of  pagans,  for  the  lack  of  that  which  it 
8  Our  thenio-  ^^"^^  Impossiblc  for  them  to  have.  This  view  has 
gian^  in  general,  bccu  dofcnded  at  largc,  by  Dannhauer,  Hulsemann, 
Scherzer,  J.  A.  Osiander,  Wagner,  Musgeus,  Spener, 
and  very  many  others.  Some  of  our  best  theologians,  Avho  have 
not  considered  the  argument  on  either  side  as  decisive,  have 
suspended  their  judgment  in  the  case,  as  did  Gerhard,  Calixtus, 
^Meisner,  Baldwin,  Bechman,  and  others.  Hunxius,  whom  Ger- 
hard quotes  approvingly,  makes  the  statement  of  this  middle 
view,  in  these  words :  "  That  the  infants  of  pagans  are  saved, 
outside  of  the  Church,  is  a  matter  on  which  the  silence  of 
Scripture  forbids  us  to  pronounce  with  assurance  on  the  one 
side,  yet  I  would  not  dare  to  affirm,  on  the  other,  that  those 
little  ones,  without  distinction,  are  lost. 

''For,  1.  Since  God  desires  the  death  of  none,  absolutely,  it 
cannot  rightly  be  supposed  that  he  takes  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  these  little  ones.  2.  Christ  died  for  them  also.  3.  They 
are  necessarily  excluded  from  the  use  of  the  Sacraments.  Xor 
will  God  visit  the  children  with  eternal  death,  on  account  of 
the  impiety  of  the  parents.  Ezek.  xviii.  We  commit  them, 
therefore,  to  the  decision  of  God." 

CoTTA  approves  of  the  most  hopeful  view  of  their  condition, 
and  argues  for  it  —  "1.  From  the  infinite  pity  of  God.  2. 
The  extent  of  the  benefits  wrought  by  Christ.  3.  The  anal- 
ogy of  faith  —  no  one  absolutely  reprobated,  but  actual  unbe- 
lief alone  condemns.  4.  ^N'ot  the  absence,  but  the  contempt  of 
Baptism  condemns.  5.  God  can  operate  in  an  extraordinary 
way.  6.  Though  original  sin,  in  itself^  merits  damnation,  and 
is  a  sufficient  cause  of  it,  yet  it  is  not  (because  of  God's  infinite 
goodness)  an  adequate  cause  of  the  actual  infliction  of  that 
condemnation." 

The  facts  we  have  dwelt  upon  dispose  of  another  charge 
9.  EMpMsmai  agalust  our  Church  —  the  charge  of  teaching  an 
ngenoraiion.  unscriptural  doctrinc  in  regard  to  regeneration, 
and  the  relation  of  Baptism  to  it. 

'^^  See  Dissertation  on  Original  Sin. 


CONFESSION  AND  PLATFORM  COMPARED.       565 

The  Definite  riatform  says  of  "Baptismal  Regeneration:  " 
**  By  this  designation  is  meant  the  doctrine  that  Baptism  is 
necessarily  and  invariahly  attended  by  spiritual  regeneration, 
and  that  such  wate?^  Baptism  is  unconditionally  essential  to  sal- 
vation." "  Regeneration,  in  its  proper  sense  of  the  term,  con- 
sists in  a  radical  chano-e  in  our  reliijfious  views  —  in  our  reliij^ious 
feelings,  purposes,  habits  of  action."  The  Miami  Synod,  in 
1858,  set  forth  what  they  suppose  to  be  meant  by  the  charge, 
when  "  they  utterly  repudiate  and  abhor  "  (as  well  they  may) 
the  following  error:  "Baptismal  regeneration  —  that  is,  that 
Baptism  is  necessarily  connected  w^ith,  or  attended  by,  an 
internal  spiritual  change  ex  opere  operato^  or  from  the  mere  out- 
ward performance  of  the  act.""^  Their  definition  and  that  of 
the  Platform  are  substantially  the  same,  though  we  do  not 
understand  them  to  charge  such  a  doctrine  upon  their  Church 
or  its  Confession. 

The  charge  against  our  Church  of  teaching  "  Baptismal 
Regeneration,"  as  those  who  make  the  charge  define  it,  is,  as 
w^e  have  seen,. utterly  ungrounded.  It  is  not  true  in  its  general 
statement  nor  in  its  details ;  it  is  utterly  without  warrant  in 
the  w^hole,  or  in  a  single  particular.  We  have  presented  a 
few  facts  in  elucidation  and  defence  of  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  Baptism,  as  confessed  by  our  Church,  and  as  ^,1,^  counter- 
misrepresented  and  assailed  in  the  Definite  Plat-  "'eory  of  Bap- 
form.  It  is  always  an  interesting  question,  often 
a  very  important  one,  If  we  give  up  that  which  is  assailed, 
what  shall  we  have  in  the  place  of  it?  This  question  is  of 
great  importance  in  the  present  case.  What  equivalent  do 
those  propose  to  the  Church,  who  ask  her  to  give  up  her  most 
cherished  doctrines  ?  What  is  the  doctrine  w^nch  the  Definite 
Platform  proposes  as  the  true  one,  in  place  of  that  theory  of 
"  Baptismal  Regeneration"  which  it  denounces  ?  It  ^  ^^  ^^^^^^  ^^ 
is  this,  "Baptism  in  adults  is  a  pledge  and  condi- 
tion of  obtaining  those  blessings  purchased  by  p7;u 
Christ,  and  offered  to  all  who  repent,  believe  in  ?'*•■«''• 
Him,  and  profess  His  name  by  Baptism." 

]N'ow,  is  not  that  which  is  a  condition  of  obtaining  a  thing 

*Lutli.  Observ.  xxvi.  29. 


adults.  The  Con- 
fession and  the 
form      coni- 


666  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

necessary  to  it  —  and  is  not  "  salvation  "  the  generic  term  for 
the  "blessings  purchased  by  Christ?"  How,  then,  can  the 
Platform  take  oftence  at  1  he  Ninth  Article  of  our  Confession  ? 
Just  put  them  side  by  side : 

Aug.  Conf.:  Baptism  |  is  necessary  j  to  salvation. 
Def.    Plat.:   Baptism  I  is  a  condition  1  those  blessings  purchased. 
I  of  obtaining  |  by  Christ. 

Then  comes  the  question  of  the  Baptism  of  infants,     AVhat 

"  Ba  tism  of  ^^^^^  ^^  *^^  vicw  which  is  to  supersede  that  anni- 

infants.  hilated  theory  (if  that   may  be   said   annihilated 

which  never  existed,)  "that  Baptism  is  a  converting  ordinance 

in  infants?  " 

The  theory  is  this  (p.  31) :  "  Baptism,  in  infants,  is  the  pledge 
of  the  bestoivment  of  those  blessings  purchased  by  Christ,  for  all. 
These  blessings  are,  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  exemption  from  the 
penal  consequences  of  natural  depravity  (which  would  at  least 
be  exclusion  from  heaven)  on  account  of  moral  disqualification 
for  admission,"  etc. 

Look  now  at  this,  and  compare  it  with  what  our  Confession 
says  on  the  Baptism  of  Infants.  (Art.  IX.)  All  that  it  says 
on  the  subject  is  : 

1.  "  That  children  are  to  be  baptized."  Here  the  Platform 
assents  fully. 

2.  "  That  by  this  Baptism  they  are  offered  and  committed 
to  God." 

Here,  too,  we  apprehend,  there  will  be  no  dissent,  for  it  is 
said :  "  Baptism  in  infants,  is  the  pledge  of  reception  into  the 
visible  Church  of  Christ,  grace  to  help  in  every  time  of  need." 

3.  "Being  offered  in  Baptism  to  God,  they  are  well-pleasing 
to  God,  (that  is,)  are  received  into  the  favor  of  God,"  says  the 
Confession,  and  here  it  ceases  to  define  the  blessings  of  Bap- 
tism ;  but  the  Platform  goes  much  further.  "Baptism  in 
infants,"  it  says,  "  is  a  pledge."  The  first  blessing  of  which  it 
declares  it  to  be  a  pledge  is  "  forgiveness  of  sins,"  conceding 
tliis,  that  infants  have  sins ;  that  they  need  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  ;  that  Uiptized  infants  have  the  pledge  of  the  forgiveness  of 
their  sins,  and,  of  necessary  consequence,  tliat  unhaptized  infants 


BAPTISM  OF  INFANTS.  567 

have  no  pledge  of  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  ;  in  other  words, 
that  there  is  no  jilcdge  that  the  sins  of  unbaptized  infants  are 
forgiven ;  for  if  they  have  the  pledge,  too,  though  they  have 
no  Baptism,  how  can  Baptism  be  the  pledge  of  forgiveness  ? 

The  words  that  follow  now,  are  explanatory  of  the  preced- 
ing ones.  "  These  blessings  are  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  exemp- 
tion from  the  penal  consequences  of  natural  depravity."  For- 
giveness is  defined  to  be  "  exemption  from  penal  consequences." 
^ins  are  defined  to  be  "natural  depravity." 

Now  wherein  does  this  doctrine  differ  from  the  old  one,  that 
in  Baptism  the  "  reatu^^''  or  liability  of  original  sin  is  taken 
away,  although  the  "  materiale  "  remains  ?*  except,  perhaps,  in 
this.  That  Luther  supposes  God  graciously  to  do  it  by  His  Holy 
Spirit  through  the  Biiptism,  while  the  Platform  may  mean, 
that  Baptism  is  only  the  pledge  that  it  is  done,  but  it  is  done 
either  way,  and  in  both  Baptism  is  the  proof,  at  least,  that 
it  is  done. 

But  we  have,  furthermore,  a  statement  of  what  "  the  penal 
consequences  of  natural  depravity  "  are :  "  Which  would,  at 
least,  be  exclusion  from  heaven^  on  account  of  moral  disqualifi- 
cation for  admission." 

!N"ow,  analyze  this  proposition,  and  you  have  the  following 
result : 

1.  That  infants  have  natural  depravity,  which  is  a  moral 
disqualification  for  heaven. 

2.  That  this  natural  depravity  has  p>enal  consequences^  that  is, 
is  a  punishable  thing ;  that  infants,  consequently^  have  moral 
character^  and  some  sort  of  moral  accountability ;  are  the  subjects 
of  law,  as  to  its  obligation,  for  they  have  sins  to  be  forgiven  ; 
and  of  law  as  to  its  ixdns.,  for  they  are  subject  to  "  ^^enal 
consequences." 

3.  That  this  punishment  would  be  exclusion  from  heaven. 
But  this  statement  is  qualified  in  a  very  remarkable  Avay  — 
"would,  at  least^  be  exclusion  from  heaven,"  —  that  is  the 
minimum.  The  words  "  at  least,''  seem  to  mark  this  train  of 
thought:  "  They  would,  at  least,  be  excluded  from  heaven,  even 
if  they  were  not  sent  to  hell."     Now  this  style  of  thinking,  as 

*  Apolog.  Confess.,  83,  35. 


568  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION 

it  has  iu  it,  uuconsciouslj  to  its  author,  we  trust  and  believe 

—  as  it  has  in  it  a  tinge  of  Pelagianism  —  so  it  trembles,  logi- 
cally, upon  the  very  border  of  that  figment  to  which  the  Pela- 
gianism of  the  Church  of  Rome,  combined  w^ith  her  strong 
sacramentalism,  leads  her  —  the  doctrine  of  a  limhus  iiifantum. 
She  w^as  too  sacramental  to  admit  that  the  original  sin  of  a 
child  could  be  removed  without  Baptism  ;  too  Pelagian  to  con- 
cede that  original  sin  must,  in  its  own  nature,  apart  from  God's 
grace,  bring  death  eternal.  Her  sacramentalism,  therefore,  kept 
the  unhaptized  child  out  of  heaven  ;  her  Pelagianism  kept  it  out 
of  hell,  and  the  conjunction  of  the  two  generated  a  tertiiim  quid 

—  the  fancy  of  a  "  limhus  infantum,^'  or  place  which,  without 
being  hell,  was  yet  one  of  exclusion  from  heaven,  a  mild  per- 
dition, whereby  infants  not  wholly  saved  were,  nevertheless, 
not  totally  lost.  And  the  shadow  of  this  very  tendency  shows 
itself  in  the  words  we  have  quoted  from  the  Platform. 

Connecting  the  three  propositions  now,  with  what  has  pre- 
ceded them,  we  reach,  then,  furthermore, 

4.  That  God  grants  forgiveness  of  the  sins  of  the  baptized 
infant,  forgives  its  natural  depravity,  exempts  it,  of  course, 
from  the  penal  consequences  thereof,  and  thus,  if  it  is  not  saved 
from  a  liability  to  eternal  death,  it  is,  '-'•  at  least,''  saved  from 
exclusion  from  heaven.  If  the  Platform  means  that  the  sin  of 
an  infant,  unforgiven,  would  bring  eternal  death  to  it,  then  it 
goes  as  far  as  the  extremest  views  of  the  nature  of  original  sin 
can  go,  and  vindicates  the  very  strongest  expressions  of  the  Con- 
fession on  this  point  ;  and  if  it  means  that  original  sin  would 
exclude  it  from  heaven  w^ithout  consigning  it  to  despair,  it  has 
virtually  the  doctrine  of  the  limhus  infantum. 

5.  And  finally.  Baptism  in  infants  is  the  pledge  of  all  this 

—  they  have  the  pledge  —  and,  of  consequence,  uiibaptized 
infants  have  not.  In  other  words,  there  is  an  assurance  that 
every  baptized  child  has  this  great  thing,  "  forgiveness  of 
sins." 

It  is  not  surprising  that,  after  all  this,  the  Platform  closes 
its  discussion  on  this  point  with  these  words  (p.  31) :  "  It  is 
proper  to  remark  that  the  greater  part  of  the  passages  in  the 
former  Symbols,  relating  to  this  subject,  are,  and  doubtless 


BAPTISM  OF  INFANTS,  569 

may  be,  explained  by  many,  to  signify  no  more  than  v:e  above 
inculcate.''  ^Ve  understand  the  author  in  this  to  concede,  not 
simply  that  they  are  so  explained,  but  that  they  are,  in  fact, 
susceptible  of  this  explanation,  and  that  this  ma^  be  really 
their  meaning. 

It  is  our  sincere  belief,  that  if  the  energy  which  has  been 
expended  in  assailing  as  doctrines  taught  by  our  Confessions 
what  they  do  not  teach,  had  been  devoted  to  ascertaining  what 
is  their  real  meaning,  these  years  of  sad  controversy  would 
have  been  years  of  building  up,  and  of  closer  union,  not  years 
of  conflict,  years  in  which  our  ministry  and  members  have  had 
their  minds  poisoned  against  the  truth  of  God  as  held  by  our 
Church. 

But,  while  there  are  apparent  points  of  identity  with  the 
Church  doctrine  in  that  of  the  Platform,  there  is  one  chasm  in 
its  theory  which  nothing  can  bridge  over,  a  contradiction  of 
the  most  palpable  and  fatal  character.  That  vital  defect  is 
this,  that  while  this  theory  secures  the  forgiveness  of  an  infant's 
sins,  it  makes  no  provision  whatever  for  the  change  of  its  sinful 
nature.  While  it  provides  for  its  exemption  from  'penalty,  it 
leaves  utterly  out  of  sight  the  correction  of  its  depravity,  which 
is  a  more  fearful  thing  than  the  penalty  w^hich  follows  it ;  for 
in  the  pure  judgment  of  sanctified  reason,  it  would  be  better 
to  be  holy  and  yet  bear  the  penalty  of  sin,  than  to  be  sinful 
and  have  the  immunities  of  holiness  ;  better  to  be  sinless, 
although  in  hell,  than  to  be  polluted  and  in  heaven.  The  the- 
ory concedes  that  there  is  in  "  infants  a  moral  clisqualification 
for  heaven."  It  absolutely  needs,  therefore,  before  an  infant 
can  have  a  pledge  in  Baptism  of  its  salvation,  that  there  shall 
be  a  pledge  provided  for  its  moral  qualification  for  heaven,  and 
this  moral  qualification  must  be  eegeneration. 

But  the  theory  not  only  does  not  provide  for  this,  but  as  far 
as  it  is  stated  in  the  Platform,  absolutely  excludes  it.  It  says, 
*' Baptism  in  infants  is  a  pledge  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins," 
but  it  says  not  a  word  of  the  removal  of  sins  in  whole  or  in 
part.  The  cardinal  defect,  therefore,  is,  that  it  provides  a 
pledge  that  the  blessings  which  follow  regeneration  shall  be 
given,  but  provides  none  that  the  regeneration  itself  shall  be 


570  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION: 

given  —  it  provides  that  the  child  shall  be  saved  from  the  pen- 
alty of  sin  without  being  saved,  in  whole  or  in  part,  from  the 
sin  itself;  saved,  in  fact,  in  its  sins,  not  from  them.  To  what 
end  would  a  child  enter  heaven  if  its  nature  were  unchanged. 
Forgiving  a  sin  in  no  sense  changes  its  character.  And  where 
in  the  Word  of  God  is  there  the  shadow  of  that  baleful  doc- 
trine, that  the  sins  of  an  nnregenerate  jKrson  are  forgiven  ;  where 
the  shadow  of  that  deadly  error,  that  God  has  provided  a 
Church,  into  which,  hy  His  own  ordinance^  and  at  His  com- 
mand^ millions  are  brought,  without  any  change  in  a  nature 
whose  moral  evil  is  such  as  would  condemn  them  forever  to 
exclusion  from  heaven  —  where  is  the  shadow  of  that  fatal 
delusion,  that  the  curse  of  sin  can  be  removed  while  the  sin 
itself  remains  dominant  ? 

But  if  a  refuge  is  sought  in  saying  that  infants  are  regen- 
erated, but  that  Baptism,  in  all  its  parts,  element,  Word  and 
Spirit,  is  not  the  ordinary  channel  of  this  grace,  this  is  to 
accept  a  theory  w^hich  has  every  difficulty  which  carnal  reason 
urges  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  but  which  has  noth- 
ing that  even  looks  like  a  warrant  for  it  in  God's  Word,  and 
w^hich,  run  out  logically,  would  destroy  the  whole  character 
of  Christianity  as  a  system  of  wonderful  means  to  beneficent 
ends. 

Dr.  Heppe,  in  his  Dogmatik  of  the  Evangelical  Eeformed 
Church  (1861),  presents  the  doctrines  of  the  Cal- 

Calvinifitic  and        ...>>,  ,  t      mi        i        x  i   •        j.        j.         '  J.^ 

Lutbcrua  views  viuistic  Churchcs,  aud  illustrates  his  text  w^itn 
of  B.ptism  com-  citatious  tVom  their  standard  theologians.     The  doc- 

pared.  ^ 

trine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  m  regard  to  Bap- 
tism, is  often  very  severely  spoken  of  by  Calvinists  —  it  is, 
indeed,  one  of  the  main  points  of  attack.  Perhaps  it  may  not 
be  without  some  interest  to  compare  the  Lutheran  and  Cal- 
vinistic  views  in  regard  to  this  important  subject. 

The  definitions  of  Baptism  which  ITeppe  gives  as  purely  Cal- 
vinistic  and  Reformed,  are  as  follows :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacra- 
ment, in  which  those  to  ichom  the  covenant  of  grace  j^ertains,  are 
washed  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  that  is,  that  to  those  w^ho  are  baptized,  it  is  signified  and 
sealed,  thsit  they  are  received  into  the  communion  of  the  covenant 


CALVINISTIC  AND  LUTIL   VIEWS   OF  BAPTISM.     571 

of  grace,  are  inserted  into  Christ  and  His  mystic  bod3^,tlie  Church, 
2iYQ  justified  by  God,  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  blood  shed  for  us, 
and  regenerated  by  Christ's  Spirit."  This  definition  he  gives 
from  Pol  AN  us.  Another  and  shorter  one  he  furnishes  from 
WoLLEBius,  as  follows :  "  Baptism  is  the  first  sacrament  of  the 
new  covenant,  in  which  to  the  elect  received  into  the  family  of 
God,  by  the  outward  application  of  water,  the  remission  of  sins 
and  regeneration  by  the  blood  of  Christy  and,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  are 
sealed J^  He  gives  only  one  other,  which  is  from  Heidegger, 
thus :  "  Baptism  is  the  sacrament  of  regeneration^  in  which  to  each 
and  to  everyone  embraced  in  the  covenant  of  God^  the  inward  wash- 
ing from  sins  through  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ.^  is  declared 
and  sealed  J  ^ 

The  doctrine  thus  stated,  and  correctly  stated,  for  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  all  genuine  Calvinists,  involves  several  things, 
which  the  detractors  of  our  Church  may  do  well  to  ponder. 
First,  It  draws  a  line  between  baptized  infants  as  well  as 
between  baptized  adults^  representing  some  as  belonging  to  the 
elect,  some  to  the  non-elect,  some  as  belonging  to  the  class  to 
whom  the  covenant  of  grace  pertains,  others  as  not  of  that 
class.  Shall  we  prefer  this  part  of  the  doctrine  to  that  which 
teaches  that  God  is  the  Father  of  all,  and  Christ  the  Saviour 
of  all,  heartily  loving  all  and  desiring  to  save  them  ?  Can  a 
mother  believe  it  p>ossible  that  between  her  ,two  beloved  little 
children  prattling  at  her  knee,  there  may  be,  in  GodJs  love, 
will,  and  purpose,  a  chasm  cleft  back  into  eternity,  and  running 
down  to  the  bottom  of  hell  ?  Can  she  believe  this  when  her  con- 
science tells  her  that  the  slightest  particdity  on  her  part,  for  the 
one  or  the  other,  would  be  a  crime?  Can  she  believe  that 
God's  absolute  sovereignty  elects  absolutely  one  of  her  children 
to  eternal  glory,  and  passes  by  the  other,  w^hen  that  passing 
by  necessarily  involves  its  ruin  forever  ?  Can  it  be  wondered 
at  that  High  Calvinism  has,  in  so  many  cases,  been  the  mother 
of  Universalism  —  that  men  who  start  with  the  premise,  that 
the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  determines  the  eternal  estate 
of  men,  should  draw  the  inference,  not  that  He  elects  some  to 
life,  and  leaves  the  mass  to  go  to  perdition,  but  that  He  elects 
aU  ^     Shall  we  give  up  this  part  of  the  baptismal  doctrine  of 


572  CONSERVATIYE   REFORMATION. 

the  Cburch  ?  And  yet  if  we  surrender  it  —  if  we  say  the  doc- 
trine of  Baptism  is  not  a  fundamental  one  in  our  system,  men 
may  teach  among  us  on  this  point  what  they  please.  What  is 
to  prevent  these  views  from  being  preached  in  our  pulpits  and 
taught  in  our  houses  ? 

A  second  feature  of  the  Calvinistic  view  of  Baptism  is, 
that  to  those  loerjedly  alike  in  all  personal  respects^  Baptism 
comes  icith  entirely  different  functions.  To  one  infant  it  signs 
and  seals  communion  in  the  covenant^  insertion  into  Christ  Jus- 
tification and  regeneration  ;  to  another,  perfectly  alike  in  all 
personal  respects,  it  signifies  and  seals  nothing.  Ko  parent 
knows  what  his  child  receives  in  Baptism,  whether  it  be  a 
mere  handful  of  water  on  its  hair,  or  the  seal  of  blessings, 
infinite  like  God,  and  irrevocable  to  all  eternity.  The  minis- 
ter does  not  know  what  he  has  done ;  whether  he  has  sealed 
the  everlasting  covenant  of  God  with  an  immortal  soul,  or 
thrown  away  time  and  breath  in  uttering  mocking  words,  to 
that  little  being  w^hich  smiles  and  prattles,  in  utter  uncon- 
sciousness that  it  is  abandoned  to  a  destiny  of  endless  pain,  of 
unspeakable  horror.  Can  we  give  up  the  baptismal  doctrine 
of  our  Church  for  this?  Our  Church  tells  us  that  Baptism 
makes  the  ofl:er  of  the  same  blessing  to  every  human  creature 
who  receives  it ;  that  a  difference  in  the  result  of  Baptism 
depends  upon  no  Uick  of  the  divine  grace,  on  no  secret  counsel 
of  God,  but  upon  the  voluntary  diflferences  of  adults  —  and 
that  as  there  are  no  such  difi:erences  in  infants,  there  is  no  dif- 
ference in  the  eftects  of  Baptism  to  them.  Surely  Lutherans 
should  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  this,  that  whatever  be  the 
blessing  of  Baptism,  be  it  little  or  great,  vague  or  well-defined, 
it  is  offered  alike  to  all,  and  conferred  alike  upon  all  Avho  do 
not  present  in  themselves  the  vol  untary  barrier  to  its  reception. 
Yet  if  we  say  the  doctrine  of  Baptism  is  non-fundamental,  these 
very  errors  may  be  set  forth  in  our  theological  chairs,  taught 
in  our  Catechisms,  and  set  forth  in  our  pulpits. 

A  third  element  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Baptism  is, 
that  to  those  for  whom  any  of  the  blessings  of  Baptism  are 
designed,  it  supposes  the  sealing  of  as  great  blessings,  as  on  the 
strongest   sacramental  theory,  even  that   of  the    Church   of 


CALVINISTIC  AND   LUTH.    VIEWS   OF  BAPTISM.     573 

Itome  herself,  is  conferred  by  Baptism  ;  it  seals  to  the  elect,  to 
whom  alone  its  blessings  belong,  reception  into  the  "  commu- 
nion, that  is  the  fellowship  in,  the  participation  in,  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,"  "  insertion  into  Christ  and  Ilis  mystic  body," 
"justification,"  "regeneration,"  and  "the  inward  washing  of 
sin."  Two  infant  brothers,  twins,  we  will  say,  are  offered  for 
Baptism ;  whatsoever  is  to  come  to  pass  has  been  unchangea- 
bly ordained  by  God  from  eternity  in  regard  to  them  ;  one  of 
the  twins  may  be  "  elect^''  may  have  been  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  life  ;  the  other  is  non-elect,  is  foreordained  to  ever- 
lasting death,  particularly  and  unchangeably.  The  twins  die 
in  infancy,  the  elect  one,  by  the  terms  of  the  theory,  is  regen- 
erated, the  non-elect  is  unregenerate ;  the  one  is  saved,  the 
other  is  lost  ;  the  grace  of  Baptism  belongeth  to  the  elect 
infant  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will,  and  there- 
fore "  baptismal  grace," — that  is  a  Calvinistic  idea,  too,  —  there- 
fore baptismal  grace  is  "  not  only  offered^  but  realbj  conferred  on 
that  infant.^''  To  an  elect  infant  dying  soon  after  its  Baptism, 
the  Calvinistic  theory  seems  to  give  as  much  as  the  highest 
theory  of  "baptismal  regeneration."  Let  Lutherans  remem- 
ber that  it  is  here  conceded  that  the  highest  blessings  which 
our  Church  teaches  us  are  connected  alone  with  a  worthy 
entrance  into  the  baptismal  covenant,  and  a  faithftd  continu- 
ance therein,  are  acknowledged  by  Calvinists  to  be  actually 
sealed  therein  —  that  is,  that  God  sets  his  hand  to  it,  by  the 
act  of  baptizing,  that  the  elect  do  then  have,  or  shall  yet  have, 
if  they  have  not  then,  justification,  regeneration,  and  inward 
Avashing  from  sin.  Shall  we  take  offence  at  the  doctrine  of 
our  Church,  which  asks  us  to  receive  as  an  article  of  faith,  in 
regard  to  the  efficacy  of  Baptism,  no  more  than  is  summed  up 
in  the  words  of  our  Confession,  that  "through  Baptism  the 
grace  of  God  is  offered,  that  children  are  to  be  baptized,  and 
being  through  Baptism  offered  to  God,  are  received  into  His 
favor?" 

Here,  then,  we  rest  the  case.  The  doctrine  of  Baptism  held 
and  confessed  by  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  is,  as  we 
believe  all  her  doctrines  are,  absolutely  accordant  in  every 
part  with  the  Word  of  God.     To  abide  by  her  Confession,  is 


574  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

to  abide  by  tbe  ^"ord,  and  there  she  and  her  true  children 
will  rest.  If  we  destroy  the  historical  life  of  our  Church,  and 
abandon  her  Confession,  whither  can  we  go  ?  What  system 
can  we  accept  which  will  meet  so  fully  our  wants  ?  If  we 
destroy  or  rend  the  Lutheran  Church,  or  allow  as  normal  and 
final  just  as  much  deviation  as  the  individual  may  wish  from 
all  to  which  she  has  been  pledged  in  her  history,  from  all  that 
is  involved  in  her  very  name,  from  all  that  gave  her  distinctive 
being,  what  may  we  hope  to  establish  in  her  place  to  justify  so 
fearful  an  experiment,  and  to  indemnify  the  world  for  so  great 
a  loss  ? 

The  final  proposition  of  the  Confession  is  antithetical,  and 
The  Antithesis  arraugcs  itself  into  three  parts  : 
of  the  Confession.       ^    u  Qj-^  ^j^^g   accouut  thc  Auabaptists  are   con- 
demned."    "Derhalben  werden  die  Wiedertaufer  verworfen." 
"  Damn  ant  Anabaptistas." 

2.  "  AVho  disapprove  of  the  Baptism  of  children  and  teach 
that  it  is  not  right."  "  Welche  lehren  dass  die  Kindertauf 
nicht  recht  sei."     "  Qui  improbant  baptismum  puerorum." 

3.  "  And  affirm  that  children  are  saved  without  Baptism." 
'*  Et  affirmant  pueros  sine  baptismo  salvos  fieri." 

I.  The  Anabaptists  took  their  name  from  their  repetition  of 
The   Anabap-  Baptism  iu  the  case  of  those  who  had  been  bap- 
"'*'•  tized  in   infancy.     {Ana  in  composition  indicates 

repetition.)  They  have  also  been  called  Katabaptists  from 
their  opposition  to  the  Baptism  of  children.  The  early  Ana- 
baptists with  whom  our  Reformers  had  to  contend,  made  their 
main  opposition  to  infant  Baptism,  and  although  they  immersed, 
they  certainly  gave  little  prominence  (if  they  gave  any)  to 
the  question  of  mode,  as  compared  with  modern  Baptists. 
The  sect  of  Anabaptists  made  their  appearance  in  history 
soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  and  excited  dis- 
turbances in  Saxony  in  1522.  The  roots  of  the  Anabaptist 
movement,  especially  on  its  political  side,  strike  deep  into  the 
Middle  Ages.  The  Reformation  was  not  its  cause,  although 
Anabaptism  often  made  the  Reformation  its  occasion.  Fanati- 
cism always  strives  to  corrupt  the  purity  of  faith  in  one  direc- 
tion, as  Formalism  strives  to  stifle  it  in  the  other.     A  pure 


ARGUMENTS   OF  THE  ANABAPTISTS.  575 

Church  stands  in  living  antagonism  to  the  formalism  of  Rome, 
and  to  the  fanaticism  of  all  psendo-Protestantism.  It  has  the 
body,  but  disavows  the  flesh  ;  it  has  s})irituality,  but  carefully 
guards  it  against  running  into  spiritualism. 

The  most  renowned  of  the  Anabaptists  in  history  was 
Thomas  Muenzer,  who  w\as  oris-inally  preacher  in 
Allstaedt.  He  w^as  deposed  on  account  of  his 
fanaticism,  and  uniting  himself  with  the  Anabaptists,  became 
their  leader.  He  published  a  bitter  attack  upon  the  Baptism 
of  children.  Leaving  Saxony,  he  passed  through  a  large  por- 
tion of  Germany  with  his  associates,  everywhere  finding, 
among  a  population  degraded  by  the  current  Romanism, 
abundance  of  adherents.  Returning  to  Saxony,  he  established 
himself  at  Muehlhus,  where  he  aroused  the  peasantry,  claimed 
princely  authority,  gathered  an  army,  abolished  the  magis- 
tracy, proclaimed  that  in  future  Christ  alone  was  to  be  king, 
and  made  war  in  1525  upon  the  princes  themselves.  The 
rebel  bands  were  defeated  at  Franckenhus,  and  Muenzer  was 
put  to  death.  Prominent  also  among  the  Anabaptists  were 
those  who  were  led  by  John  of  Leyden,  so  called 

^  ^  '  JoIinufLeydeu. 

from  his  having  seized  upon  that  city,  where  he 
overthrew  the  magistracy,  assumed  the  government  with  the 
title  of  king,  made  laws  to  suit  himself  and  his  followers,  and 
practised  great  cruelties  toward  those  who  did  not  yield  them- 
selves to  him.  The  city  was  besieged  in  1526  ;  an  immense 
number  of  his  adherents  were  slain,  and  he  himself  was 
put  to  death.  It  is  evident  that  the  Anabaptist  movement  w^as 
political  as  well  as  religious,  and  was  largely  a  reaction,  blind 
and  ignorant,  against  gross  abuses.  The  Anabaptists  are  con- 
demned in  the  Confession,  not  in  their  persons,  but  in  their 
errors ;  the  man  was  not  condemned  —  the  errorist,  or  more 
strictly  the  error  in  the  errorist,  was  condemned. 

II.  The  SECOND  point  is :  "  Who  disapprove  of  the  Baptism 
of  children,  and  teach  that  it  is  not  right." 

It  is  natural  here  to  look  at  the  grounds  on  which  the  Ana- 
baptists object  to  Infant  Baptism,  and  say  that  it  Argnniei.tfl  of 
is  not  right.  The  most  plausible  arguments  which  *''^  Anabaptists. 
the}^  urge  against  it,  have  been  in  a  large  part  anticipated  in 


676  COXSERTATIVE    B  E  FOB  31  AT  I  OX. 

our  discussion,  but  we  shall,  nevertheless,  notice  the  three 
strongest,  the  only  ones  which  seem  to  carr}'  any  weight  with 
them,  ^[uch  of  the  earlier  Anal)aptist  argument  has  been 
abandoned,  as,  for  example,  that  as  our  Saviour  was  baptized 
in  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  age,  infants  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  three  arguments  which  have  been  urged  with 
most  plausibility  are : 

1.  That  there  is  no  express  command  for  infant  Baptism. 

To  this  we  replj^:  a.  That  there  is  an  express  command. 
Our  Lord  commands  his  Apostles  to  make  disciples  of  all 
nations  by  baptizing  them.  The  word  "  nations  "  embraces 
infants.  "  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men." 
(Acts  xvii.  26.)  The  redemption  is  as  wide  as  the  creation, 
and  the  power  of  application  as  wide  as  the  redemption.  The 
"  nations,"  therefore,  which  God  has  made,  redeemed,  and  de- 
sires to  gather  into  His  Church,  are  nations  of  children  as  well 
as  of  adults.  "  It  is  most  certain,"  says  the  Apology,"  "  that 
the  promise  of  salvation  pertains  also  to  little  children.  But 
the  promises  do  not  pertain  to  those  who  are  out  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  for  the  kingdom  of  Christ  cannot  exist  without  the 
"Word  and  Sacraments.  Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  baptize 
little  children,  that  the  promise  of  salvation  may  be  applied  to 
them,  according  to  Christ's  command  (Matt,  xxviii.  19),  '  Bap- 
tize all  nations,'  in  which  words  as  salvation  is  offered  to  all, 
80  Baptism  is  offered  to  all  —  to  men,  to  women,  to  children,  to 
infants.  It  clearly  follows,  therefore,  that  infants  are  to  be 
baptized,  inasmuch  as  salvation  is  offered  in  Baptism  —  in  and 
with  Baptism  the  common  grace  and  treasure  of  the  Gospel  is 
offered  to  them." 

b.  When  Jesus  says :  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh,"  and  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  He  teaches 
that  infants,  inasmuch  as  they  are  flesh,  must  be  born  again  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  that  is,  must  be  baptized  and  become 
regenerate. 

c.  If  the  express  term  were  necessary,  men  and  women 
equally  with  infants  would  be  excluded  from  Baptism,  because 

*  1G3,  52. 


ARGUMENTS   OF  THE  ANABAPTISTS.  577 

none  of  them  are  specifically  mentioned  in  the  baptismal  com- 
mission ;  in  other  words,  there  is  a  generic  express  command 
to  baptize  infants  on  the  one  hand,  and  there  is  no  specific 
express  command  on  the  other  either  as  regards  sex  or  age. 

d.  Infant  membership,  sealed  by  a  sacramental  rite,  was 
established  under  the  Old  Testament.  If  it  had  been  designed 
to  abolish  infant  membership  under  the  Kew  Dispensation,  it 
would  have  been  necessary  to  do  it  in  so  many  words.  The  ques- 
tion lairly  put,  then,  is  not,  "  Where  is  infant  Baptism  enjoined 
in  the  New  Testament? "  but,  "  Where  is  it  forbidden?  " 

e.  Infant  Baptism  was  practised  by  the  Jews  in  ]N'ew  Testa- 
ment times.  Lightfoot,  the  greatest  of  the  old  rabbinical  schol- 
ars, says,  in  his  Harmony  on  John  :  *  "  The  baptizing  of  infants 
was  a  thing  as  commonly  known  and  as  commonly  used  before 
John's  coming,  and  at  the  time  of  his  coming,  and  subsequently, 
as  anything  holy  that  was  used  among  the  Jews,  and  they  were 
as  familiarly  acquainted  with  infant  Baptism  as  they  were 
with  infant  circumcision."  And  this  he  proves  by  abundant 
citations  from  the  Talmud  and  the  old  rabbinical  writers.  It 
is  inconceivable,  therefore,  that  in  such  a  state  of  things  the 
Apostles  should  not  have  forbidden  infant  Baptism,  if  it  were 
not  meant  that  it  should  be  administered. 

/.  The  argument,  a  fortiori :  If  in  the  Old  Testament,  com- 
paratively restricted  as  its  range  was,  infants  w^ere  embraced 
in  the  covenant,  much  more  in  the  IN'ew  Testament,  broader 
and  more  gracious  than  the  Old  as  it  is,  would  they  be  em- 
braced. But  infants  are  embraced  in  the  Old,  much  more 
than  in  the  Kew. 

g.  That  is  as  really  Scriptural  which  is  by  just  and  necessary 
consequence  deduced  from  Scripture,  as  that  which  is  stated  in 
it  in  so  many  words.  When  the  Bible  says :  "  There  is  but 
one  God,"  it  means  just  as  much  that  the  gods  of  the  heathen 
are  false,  as  if  it  were  said  in  so  many  words. 

2.  It  is  urged  that  a  covenant  requires  consciousness  and 
intelligence  on  the  part  of  those  whom  it  embraces ;  but  infants 
can  have  no  consciousness  of  a  covenant,  therefore  they  cannot 
be  embraced  in  one. 

*  Opera,  1686.     Vol.  I.  p.  390. 
37 


578  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

We  reply  to  this :  a.  Divine  covenants  do  not  require  con- 
sciousness and  intelligence  on  the  part  of  all  whom  they 
emhrace.  On  the  contrary,  they  embrace  not  only  infonts,  but 
prospectively  generations  unborn,  as,  for  example,  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  and  his  seed  after  him,  sealed  by  the  sac- 
rament of  circumcision. 

h.  Human  covenants  do  not  necessarily  require  consciousness 
and  intelligence  on  the  part  of  all  embraced  in  them,  but  rest 
on  the  right  of  the  adult  generation  to  represent,  and  act  for 
their  children  and  posterity.  AVe  are  bound  by  the  constitu- 
tional compact  made  by  our  fathers  —  bound  by  the  covenants 
and  treaties  with  foreign  nations  made  before  we  were  born. 

c.  The  baptismal  covenant  is  a  voluntary  covenant  in  one 
sense,  that  is  to  say,  the  child's  will  is  presumed  in  the  case. 
If  the  child  cannot  consciously  accept  the  covenant,  neither  can 
it,  nor  does  it,  reject  it.  In  another  sense,  however,  the  baptis- 
mal covenant  is  not  voluntary.  All  human  creatures  are  bound 
to  be  children  of  God,  and  have  not  the  right  to  say  whether 
they  will  or  will  not  be  His  children.  If  my  child  has  not 
the  rieht  of  self-decision  as  to  whether  it  shall  honor  me  as  its 
parent,  but  is  absolutely  bound  so  to  do,  though  it  never  was 
consulted,  much  more  is  that  same  child  bound  to  honor  God, 
and  I  usurp  no  right  pertaining  to  it,  when,  as  its  representa- 
tive, I  bind  it  by  covenant  to  that  to  which  it  is  bound  with- 
out covenant. 

3.  It  is  urired  that  sacraments  do  not  benefit  without  faith  ; 
but  the  infant  has  no  faith,  therefore  Baptism  can  do  it  no 
good. 

We  reply  to  this:  a.  If  infants  demonstrably  have  no  faith, 
it  would  still  be  possible  that  in  their  Baptism  there  is  a  treas- 
ure of  blessing,  the  full  understanding  and  use  of  which  is 
reserved  for  them  when  they  can  have  faith,  even  as  a  lather 
provides  for  his  babe,  or  bequeaths  to  it  many  things  which  it 
cannot  use  till  it  reaches  adult  life,  though  they  belong  to  it 
from  the  beo-innino^. 

h.  But  infants  do  have  receptive  faith.  "  When  we  say  that 
infants  believe  or  have  faith,  it  is  not  meant  that  they  under- 
stand, or  have  consciousness  of  faith,  but  the  erroi*  is  rejected 


FAITH   OF  INFANTS  579 

that  baptized  infants  are  pleasing  to  God,  and  are  saved,  with- 
out any  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  them.  This  is  certain,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  efficacious  in  them,  so  that  they  can  receive 
the  grace  of  God  and  the  remission  of  sins.  The  Holy  Spirit 
operates  in  them  in  His  own  way,  which  it  is  not  in  our  powder 
to  expUiin.  That  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  infants  we  call 
faith,  and  we  affirm  that  they  believe.  For  that  mean,  or 
organ,  by  which  the  kingdom  of  God,  offered  in  the  Word  and 
Sacraments,  is  received^  the  Scripture  calls  faith,  and  declares 
that  believers  receive  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  Christ  affirms, 
Mark  x.  15,  that  adults  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  same 
way  that  a  little  child  receives  it ;  and.  Matt,  xviii.  6,  He  speaks 
of  the  little  ones  which  believe  in  Him."  These  are  the  words 
of  Chemnitz,*  and  they  mark  the  distinction  we  make  in  the 
term  receptive  faith.  Faith  as  an  act,  like  sin  as  an  act,  pre- 
supposes a  condition  of  mind,  which  condition  is  the  essential 
thing  in  both  cases,  to  which  the  act  is  merely  phenomenal. 
The  act  is  intermittent,  the  condition  is  continuous.  The 
worst  of  men  does  not  cease  to  be  a  sinner  merely  because  the 
act  of  sinning  ceases.  He  may  be  in  stupor,  or  in  sleep,  or  his 
present  thoughts  may  be  absorbed  in  something  morally  indif- 
ferent, and  yet  he  is  a  sinner  through  the  whole.  He  is  not 
always  sinning,  but  he  is  always  sinful,  because  the  essence  of 
character  lies  in  the  condition  of  the  soul.  The  believer  may 
be  in  stupor,  or  sleep,  or  his  present  thoughts  be  entirely  ab- 
sorbed in  the  necessary  cares,  or  duties,  or  innocent  enjoyments 
of  life,  but  he  is  a  believer  through  the  whole.  He  is  not 
always  consciously  exercising  faith,  but  he  is  a  believer  always, 
because  the  essence  of  character  is  the  condition  of  the  soul. 
In  the  case  of  the  infant,  both  on  the  side  of  nature  and  of 
grace,  there  must  be,  and  is,  a  stronger  and  more  protracted 
separation  between  the  essential  condition  of  sin  and  faith,  and 
the  phenomenon  of  conscious  sin  and  of  conscious  faith,  than 
in  the  case  of  the  adult,  but  the  condition  is  as  real.  By  nature 
the  infant  is  as  really  a  sinner,  and  by  grace  as  really  a  believer, 
as  the  adult  is,  though  it  can  neither  do  sin  nor  exercise  faitli. 
It  has  sin  by  nature,  and  has  faith  by  grace.     Working  out 

*  Examen.  Cone.  Trid.  II.  ii.  x.  14. 


580  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

uuder  the  law  of  the  first  condition,  it  will  inevitahly  do  sin,  as 
under  the  law  of  the  second  it  will  exercise  faith.  Faith  justifies 
hy  its  receptivity  alone.  There  is  no  justifying  merit  in  faith  as 
an  act,  nor  is  there  any  in  the  acts  it  originates.  In  the  adult  it 
is  divinely  wrought :  it  is  "  not  of  ourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of 
God."  In  the  infant  there  is  wrought  by  God,  through  the 
Holy  Ghost,  by  means  of  the  water  and  the  Word,  that  recep- 
tivity of  condition  which  it  has  not  by  nature.  The  Holy 
Ghost  ofiers  grace,  and  so  changes  the  moral  nature  of  the 
child  that  this  nature  becomes  receptive  of  the  grace  oftered. 
This  divinely  wrought  condition  we  call  receptive  faith,  and 
though  its  phenomena  are  suspended,  it  is  really  faith,  and  as 
really  involves  what  is  essential  to  justification,  as  does  the 
faith  of  the  adult.  The  hand  of  an  infant  may  as  really  grasp 
a  diamond  as  if  the  infant  knew  the  value  of  the  treasure  it 
held,  and  if  the  natural  hand  can  be  the  minister  of  acts  whose 
force  it  comprehends  not,  how^  much  more  may  the  supernatu- 
ral hand?  To  accept  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  deny  the 
doctrine  of  a  divine  counterwork  —  the  doctrine  "  that  where 
sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound" — is  to  make 
nature  potent,  and  grace  w^eak  —  it  is  an  aggravation  of  Mani- 
cheism,  and  gives  us  a  Devil  mightier  than  God.  Many  of  the 
Calvinistic  divines  have  felt  the  difficulty  under  -svhich  their 
system  labors,  and  have  modified  it  in  various  degrees,  so  as  to 
approximate  the  Lutheran  view.  Calvin  acknowledges  "  a 
seed  of  faith  in  infants."  Ursinus^  says  they  have  an  "•  incli- 
natory  faith,  or  inclination  to  faith."  Voetius  says  "  there  is 
in  them  a  root,  faculty,  supernatural  principle,  seed,  or  nursery, 
from  whence,  in  its  own  time,  faith  rises  up.  It  is  related  to 
faith  as  seed  is  to  the  tree,  the  Qgg  to  the  bird,  the  bulb  to  the 
flower."  Peter  Martyr  says  that  faith  in  infants  is  ''  incipient, 
is  in  its  principle  and  root,  inasmuch  as  they  have  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whence  faith  and  all  virtues  flow  forth.  .  .  The  age  of 
infancy  is  capable  of  the  motions  of  faith,  and  Jeremiah  and 
John  are  witnesses  that  this  age  can  be  graced  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  "t 

Nor  was  this  great  truth  unknown  in  the  Ancient  Church. 

*  In  Crtteches    Q.  57.  f  Quoted  in  Quenstedt.  Theologiu.  11.  114"J,  1145. 


ARGUMENTS   OF  THE  ANABAPTIST}^.  581 

•  Thou  must  number  baptized  infants  among  believers,"  says 
Aagustine*  to  a  Pelagian:  "thou  darest  not  judge  in  any 
other  way,  if  thou  art  not  willing  to  be  a  manifest  heretic." 
"In  baptized  infants,  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells,  though  they 
know  it  not.  So  know  they  not  their  own  mind,— they  know 
not  their  own  reason,  which  lies  dormant,  as  a  feeble  glimmer, 
which  is  to  be  aroused  with  the  advance  of  years,  "f 

c.  Over  against  the  proposition  that  nothing  benefits  with- 
out faith,  we  put  the  complementary  proposition  that  nothing 
condemns  but  unbelief;  but  infants  who  by  nature  are  con- 
demned, because  of  the  unbelief  of  nature,  though  they  are  not 
conscious  of  it,  are  by  grace  received  into  covenant,  because  by 
grace  they  have  faith,  though  they  are  unconscious  of  it.  If 
infants  can  be  regenerated  and  have  remission  of  sins,  then  can 
they  have  faith,  which  is  an  element  in  regeneration,  and  neces- 
sary to  remission. 

d.  The  Word  does  not  profit,  without  faith,  in  the  adult, 
and  yet  it  is  the  Word  through  which  the  Holy  Ghost  excites 
the  faith  which  secures  the  benefit.  So  is  it  in  Baptism.  It 
ofters  the  faith  which  receives,  and  offers  to  that  faith  the 
grace  of  God ;  as  the  word  of  our  Lord  to  the  man  with  the 
withered  hand  bore  the  power  which  made  obedience  to  the 
command  possible.  If  Baptism  ofifers  grace  to  a  child,  then 
may  Ave  be  well  assured  that  God,  who  does  not  mock  us,  gives 
to  that  child  what  by  nature  it  cannot  have  —  a  receptive 
faith.  All  divine  commands  bear  with  them  the  power  of 
their  fulfilment  under  the  law  of  grace. 

e.  The  Apostles  in  their  original  ignorance  reasoned  about 
children  somewhat  as  the  Anabaptists  do.  But  Jesus  said: 
"  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me, 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  not  a  kingdom  of  unbelievers,  or  of  unregenerate  per- 
sons.    All  the  tares  in  that  kingdom  are  sown  by  the  Devil. 

III.  The  THIRD  and  last  point  in  the  antithesis  is  that  the 
Anabaptists  "  affirm  that  children  are  saved  without  Baptism," 
"et  affirmant  pueros  sine  baptismo  salvos  fieri." 

*  De  Verb.  Apostol.  Serm.  xiv.  Vol.  X.  2iil. 
f  Do.  Epist.  57.  Op.  IV.  180. 


582  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

We  have  seen  that  our  own  Confessors  did  not  maintain  the 
absolute  necessity  of  Baptism  to  salvation,  and  it  may,  there- 
fore, seem  surprising  that  they  charge  upon  the  Anabaptists  as 
an  error  what  they  themselves  appear  to  concede.  But  if  we 
see  the  true  force  of  their  language,  the  difficulty  vanishes,  for 

1.  The  Anabaptists  contended  that  Baptism  was  not  the 
ordinary  channel  of  salvation  to  the  child.  Our  Confessors 
maintained  that  it  is. 

2.  The  Anabaptists  contended  that  in  fact  children  are  not 
saved  by  Baptism.  Our  Confessors  maintained  that  in  fact 
children  are  saved  by  it. 

3.  The  Anabaptists  contended  that  no  child  is  saved  by  Bap- 
tism. Our  Confessors  maintained  that  children  are  saved  by 
Baptism. 

4.  The  Anabaptists  contended  that  a  baptized  child  who  is 
saved,  is  saved  without  respect  to  its  Baptism.  Our  Confessors 
maintained  that  it  is  saved  of  God  by  it  as  a  mean. 

5.  When  our  Confessors  conceded  that  an  unbaptized  child 
might  be  saved,  they  rested  its  salvation  on  a  wholly  different 
ground  from  that  on  which  the  Anabaptists  rested  it.  The 
Anabaptists  contended,  on  a  Pelagian  basis,  that  the  child  was 
saved  because  of  its  innocence,  and  without  a  change  of  nature. 
Our  Confessors  maintained  that  it  was  saved  as  a  sinful  beins: 
for  Christ's  sake,  and  after  renewal  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Our 
Confessors,  in  a  word,  maintained  that  children  are  ordinarily 
saved  by  Baptism  ;  that  this  is  God's  ordinary  channel  of  sal- 
vation to  them.  The  Anabaptists  contended  that  children  are 
in  no  case  saved  by  Baptism ;  that  it  is  not  the  ordinary  chan- 
nel of  salvation  ;  and  this  error  of  theirs  is  the  one  condemned 
in  the  Confession.  The  Formula  of  Concord*  makes  all  these 
points  very  clear  in  its  statement  of  the  errors  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, which  it  enumerates  thus  :  1.  "  That  unbaptized  children 
are  not  sinners  before  God,  but  are  righteous  and  innocent,  who, 
without  Baptism  (of  which,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Anabaptists,  they  have  no  need,)  are  saved  in  their  innocence, 
inasmuch  as  they  have  not  yet  attained  to  the  use  of  their 
reason.    In  this  way  they  reject  the  entire  doctrine  of  Original 

*Epitom.  558.  G,  7,  8.     Solid.  Declarat.   727.  11,  12,  13. 


ARGUMENTS   OF   THE  ANABAPTISTS.  583 

Sin,  and  the  doctrines  which  are  dependent  on  it.  2.  That 
children  are  not  to  be  baptized  until  they  attain  the  use  of 
reason,  and  can  make  a  profession  of  faith  for  themselves.  3. 
That  the  children  of  Christians,  because  of  their  birth  of  Chris- 
tian and  believing  parents,  are  holy,  and  children  of  God,  with- 
out Baptism,  and  previous  to  it." 

In  summing  up  the  doctrine  of  Baptism  we  are  to  remember: 

1.  The  necessity  of  a  true  definition  of  Baptism.  Baptism 
is  not  mere  water,  but  embraces  also  the  command  of  God ; 
the  promise  of  God ;  the  effectual  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
offering  to  faith,  in  connection  with  the  outward  part  of  Bap- 
tism, the  grace  of  God.  Whatever  is  wrought  in  Baptism,  is 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  Word,  with  the 
water,  in  the  believing  soul. 

2.  That  in  adults  Baptism  is  not  always  followed  by  regen- 
eration, and  that  regeneration  is  not  always  preceded  by  Bap- 
tism ;  that  men  may  be  baptized  and  be  lost,  and  may  be 
unbaptized  and  be  saved. 

3.  That  unbaptized  infants  may  be  saved,  and  that  the 
infants  of  heathen  may  be  saved;  that  Baptism,  though  not 
absolutely  essential  in  the  theological  sense,  is  yet  necessary. 

The  whole  doctrine  of  our  Church,  then,  on  the  question, 
"What  is  Baptism,  and  what  are  its  blessings?"  may  be 
summed  up  in  these  words : 

By  Christian  Baptism  our  Church  understands  not  "  mere 
WATER  "  (Small.  Cat.  361,  2),  but  the  whole  divine  institution 
(Larger  Cat.  491,  38-40),  resting  on  the  command  of  the 
Saviour,  Matt,  xxviii.  19  (Sm.  Cat.  361,  2),  in  which  He  com- 
prehends, and  in  which  He  offers  the  promise  (Mark  xv.  15  ; 
Sm.  Cat.  362,  8),  and  which  is,  therefore,  ordinarily  necessary 
to  salvation  (A.  C.  ii.  2;  ib.  ix.  1,  3);  in  which  institution, 
water,  whether  by  immersion  (L.  C.  495,  65),  sprinkling  or 
pouring  (L.  C.  492,  45),  applied  by  a  minister  of  the  Gospel 
(A.  C.  v.  1 ;  ib.  14),  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  (Sm.  Cat.  361,  4), 
to  adults  or  infants  (A.  C.  ix.  2),  is  not  merely  the  sign  of  our 
profession,  or  of  our  actual  recognition  as  Christians,  but  is 
rather  a  sign  and  testimony  of  the  will  of  God  toward  us  (A. 
C.  xiii.  1),  offering  us  His  grace  (A.  C.  ix.),  and  not  ex  opere 


584  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

operato  (A.  C.  xiii.  3),  but  in  those  only  who  rightly  use  it,  i.  e. 
who  believe  from  the  heart  the  promises  which  are  offered  and 
shown  (A.  C.  xiii.  2 ;  L.  C.  49,  33),  is  one  of  the  instruments 
by  which  the  Tloly  Ghost  is  given  (A.  C.  v.  2),  who  excites 
and  confirms  faith,  whereby  we  are  justified  before  God  (A.  C. 
iv.;  ib.  V.  3),  so  that  they  who  thus  receive  or  use  it,  are  in 
God's  favor  (A.  C.  ix.  2),  have  remission  of  their  sins  (Nicene 
Creed,  9),  are  born  again  (A.  C.  ii.  2),  and  are  released  from 
condemnation  and  eternal  death  (A.  C.  ii.  2 ;  Sm.  C.  361,  6)  so 
long  as  they  are  in  a  state  of  foith,  and  bring  forth  holy  works 
(A.  C.  xiii.  1-6  ;  Sm.  C.  362, 11-14,^;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
where  there  is  no  faith,  a  bare  and  fruitless  sign,  so  far  as 
blessing  is  concerned,  alone  remains  (L.  C.  496,  73),  and  they 
who  do  not  use  their  Baptism  aright,  and  are  acting  against 
conscience,  and  lettins:  sin  reio^n  in  them,  and  thus  lose  the 
Holy  Spirit,  are  in  condemnation,  from  which  they  cannot 
escape,  except  by  true  conversion  (A.  C.  xiii.),  a  renewal  of  the 
understanding,  will,  and  heart  (L.  C.  496,  68,  69  ;  F.  C.  605,  70). 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  and  not  one  letter  of  it 
is  destitute  of  the  sure  warrant  of  God's  Word.  The  intelli- 
gent examiner  will  soon  discover  that,  while  the  whole  sum 
and  tendency  of  the  Romish  and  Romanizing  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments  is  to  make  them  a  substitute  for  faith  in  the  justi- 
fication of  man,  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  con- 
sonance with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  makes  them  a  guard  and 
bulwark  of  the  great  central  truth  that  "  by  grace  we  are 
saved,  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  ourselves,  —  it  is  the  gift 
of  God."  Her  view  of  the  nature  of  the  efficacy  of  the  Word 
and  Sacraments,  is  the  only  one  which  solves  the  mysterious 
question  how  God  can  be  sovereign,  and  yet  man  be  accounta- 
ble ;  and  how  the  Church  can  at  once  avoid  the  perilous 
extreme  of  Pelagianism  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  unconditional 
Election  and  Reprobation  on  the  other. 


XII. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  THETICALLY 

STATED. 

(AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.     ART.  X.) 


IN  approaching  one  of  the  highest,  if  not  the  very  highest,  of 
the  mysteries  of  our  faith,  it  becomes  us  to  prepare  ourselves 
for  a  most  earnest,  patient,  and  candid  investigation  ^^^  ^^^^,^  ^^^ 
of  the  Scriptural  grounds  on  which  that  faith  rests,  per.  i.  om  Tea. 
The  Lord's  Supper  has  been  looked  at  too  much  as  ^",")j7^3  l^'iZ 
if  it  were  an  isolated  thing,  with  no  antecedents,  facraments    in 

.    .  •/?    J.1  Edeu. 

no  presuppositions,  no  sequences ;  as  it  there  were 
nothing  before  it,  nothing  after  it,  helping  to  determine  its 
true  character  ;  while,  in  fact,  it  links  itself  with  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  Revelation,  with  the  most  vital  parts  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  so  that  it  cannot  be  torn  from  its  true  con- 
nections without  logically  bringing  with  it  the  whole  system. 
There  is  no  process  by  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  can  be  overthrown, 
which  does  not  overthrow  the  entire  fabric  of  the  Atonement. 
No  man  can  deem  our  distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per non-fundamental  who  thoroughly  understands  it  in  all  its 
relations. 

The  first  thing  worthy  of  note  in  regard  to  the  sacramental 
mystery  is  its  antiquity.  It  meets  us  at  the  threshold  of  the 
divine  history  of  our  race.  In  Eden  we  see  already  the  idea  of 
natural  and  supernatural  eating.  We  have  there  the  natural 
eating  terminating  in  the  natural,  in  the  words:  ''Of  every 
tree  of  the  Garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat."    Closely  following 


i»8a 


686  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

upon  this  we  have  the  idea  of  supernatural  eating,  svith  the 
natural  bodily  organ  :  "  Of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil  thou  shalt  not  eat ;  for  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die."  Man  did  eat  of  it,  and  found  it  a  sac- 
rament of  death.  In,  with,  and  under  that  food,  as  a  divine 
means  judicially  appointed,  was  communicated  death.     That 

"  mortal  taste 
Brought  death  into  the  world  and  all  our  woe." 

The  great  loss  of  Paradise  Lost  was  that  of  the  Sacrament 
of  Life,  of  that  food,  in,  with,  and  under  which  was  given 
immortality,  so  objectively,  positively,  and  really  that  even 
fallen  man  would  have  been  made  deathless  by  it :  "  ^NTow  lest 
he  put  forth  his  hand,  and  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat, 
and  live  forever,"  Gen.  iii.  22.  The  great  gain  of  Paradise 
Regained  is  that  of  the  Sacrament  of  Life.  Christ  says  :  "I 
am  the  life ;  "  "  The  bread  that  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  which 
I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  The  cross  of  Christ  is 
the  tree  of  life,  and  He  the  precious  fruit  borne  by  heavenly 
grace  upon  it.  The  cross  is  the  centre  of  Paradise  Regained, 
as  the  tree  of  life  was  the  centre  of  the  first  Paradise.  Christ's 
body  is  the  organ  of  the  life  purchased  by  His  obedience  and 
death.  The  Holy  Supper  is  the  sacrament  of  that  body,  and, 
through  the  body,  the  sacrament  of  the  life  which  that  body 
brings.  But  that  same  body  is  also  a  sacrament  of  death  to 
the  unworthy  recipient.  The  whole  sacrament  on  its  two  sides 
of  death  and  life  is  in  it  united  :  salvation  to  the  believer,  judg- 
ment to  the  unworthy.  After  the  creation  of  man,  God's  first 
provision  was  for  the  generation  and  birth  of  the  race,  the  fore- 
shadowing of  regeneration  and  of  the  new  birth,  for  which,  \\. 
Holy  Baptism,  the  first  provision  is  made  in  the  new  creation 
of  the  Xew  Testament.  The  next  provision  made  for  man  was 
that  of  sustenance  for  the  life  given,  or  yet  to  be  given.  In 
the  Garden  of  Eden  was  a  moral  miniature  of  the  universe ; 
and  with  the  act  of  eating  were  associated  the  two  great 
realms  of  the  natural  and  the  supernatural ;  and  with  this  was 
connected  the  idea  of  the  one  as  a  means  of  entering  the  other, 
of  the  natural  as  the  means  of  entering  into  the  supernatural. 


THE  SACRAMENTS  IN  EDEN.  687 

There  were  natural  trees,  with  purely  natural  properties^  whose 
fruit  was  eaten  naturally,  and  whose  henefits  were  simply  nat- 
ural ;  bodily  eating,  terminating  in  a  bodily  sustenance.  But 
there  was  also  the  natural  terminating  in  the  supernatural. 
There  were  two  trees,  striking  their  roots  into  the  same  soil, 
lifting  their  branches  in  the  same  air  —  natural  trees  —  but 
bearing,  by  Heaven's  ordinance,  in,  with,  and  under  their 
fruitage,  supernatural  properties.  One  w^as  the  sacramental 
tree  of  good.  We  call  it  a  sacramental  tree,  because  it  did  not 
merely  symbolize  life,  or  signify  it ;  but,  by  God's  appoint- 
ment, so  gave  life  —  in,  with,  and  under  its  fruit  —  that  to 
receive  its  fruit  was  to  receive  life.  The  fruit  w^hich  men 
there  would  have  eaten  was  the  communion  of  life.  On  Gen. 
iii.  22,  the  sound  old  Puritan  commentator,  Poole,  thus  para- 
phrases :  "  Lest  he  take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  as  he  did  take 
of  the  tree  of  know^ledge,  and  thereby  profane  that  sacrament 
of  eternal  life  J' 

With  this  tree  of  life  was  found  the  tree  which  was  the  sac- 
rament of  judgment  and  of  death,  and  by  man's  relations  to 
that  tree  w^ould  be  tested  whether  he  were  good  or  evil,  and 
by  it  he  would  continue  to  enjoy  good  or  plunge  himself  into 
evil.  By  an  eating,  whose  organs  were  natural,  but  whose 
relations  were  supernatural,  man  fell  and  died.  This  whole 
mystery  of  evil,  these  pains  and  sorrows  which  overwhelm  the 
race,  the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future  of  sin,  revolve 
around  a  single  natural  eating,  forbidden  by  God,  bringing 
the  offender  into  the  realm  of  the  supernatural  for  judgment. 
We  learn  here  what  fearful  grandeur  may  be  associated  in  the 
moral  government  of  God,  with  a  thing  in  itself  so  simple  as 
the  act  of  eating.  The  first  record  of  Revelation  is  a  warning 
against  the  plausible  superficiality  of  rationalism.  It  was  the 
rationalistic  insinuation  of  Satan,  as  to  the  meaning  of  God's 
Word,  which  led  to  the  Fall.  Abandon  faith  in  the  letter 
of  God's  Word,  said  the  Devil.  Our  first  parents  obeyed  the 
seductive  insinuation  arid  died. 

In  the  Lord's  Supper  three  great  ideas  meet  us  as  they  met 
in  Paradise.  There  is  in  it,  1,  Bread ^  which,  as  bread,  is  the 
natural  food  of  man,  and  belongs  to  all  men.     But  there  is 


588  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

also,  2,  The  supernatural  element  of  life :  *'  My  flesh,  which  I 
will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  The  natural  hread,  as  the 
sacrannental  bearer  of  this  heavenly  food,  is  the  communion  of 
the  bod\'  of  Christ,  that  is,  the  medium  by  which  the  body  is 
communicated  or  imparted.  There  is  also  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, 3,  The  supernatural  element  o^  judgment^  and  that  of  judg- 
ment unto  death:  "  He  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily, 
eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  (or,  judgment)  unto  himself, 
not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  The  tree  of  life,  as  our  theo- 
logians well  observed,  was  not  a  memorial,  a  symbol,  a  sugges- 
tive emblem  or  sign  ;  but  w^as  a  supernatural,  efficacious,  and 
energetic  means  of  life.  *'This  tree,"  says  Osiander  (1589), 
"by  the  divine  ordination  and  will,  bore  fruit  which  could 
preserve  the  bodily  vigor  of  him  who  partook  of  it  ('  in  per- 
petual youth  ')  until  man,  having  completed  the  term  of  his 
earthly  life,  would,  without  dj'ing,  have  been  translated  to  his 
life  in  heaven."  So  also  the  tree  of  the  knowledo;e  of  o;ood  and 
evil  did  not  symbolize  a  result,  but  brought  it.  Life  was  in, 
with,  and  under  the  fruit  of  the  one  tree  ;  death,  in,  with,  and 
under  the  fruit  of  the  other. 

This  view  is  not  a  modern  invention.  It  is  found  in  Irenseus, 
St.  Chrysostom,  and  Theodoret.  Gregory  E"azianzen  enlarges 
upon  the  idea  of  "  being  made  immortal  by  coming  to  the  tree 
of  life."  St.  Augustine  says:  "In  the  other  trees  there  was 
nourishment ;  in  this  one,  a  sacrament  "  ("  in  isto  autem.  Sacra- 
menhan^^).  Yatablus  (1557),  a  very  judicious  Roman  Catho- 
lic expositor,  fairly  expresses  the  general  sense  of  the  Fathers 
in  stating  his  own  :  "  The  tree  of  life  was  a  sacrament^  by 
which  God  would  have  sealed  immortal  life  to  Adam,  if  he 
had  not  departed  from  His  commandment."  Delitzsch  :  "  The 
tree  of  life  had  the  power  of  ever  renewing  and  of  gradually 
transfiguring  the  natural  life  of  man.  To  have  used  it  after 
the  Fall  would  have  been  to  perpetuate  forever  the  condition 
into  which  he  had  fallen." 

Xor  is  the  true  view  without  support  from  sources  whence 
we  might  least  expect  it.  Rosenmiiller  (Rationalistic) :  "  This 
writer  means  that  the  weakened  powers  were  to  be  revived  by 
eating  of  that  tree,  and  this  life  was  to  be  preserved  forever." 


FLESH  AND  BLOOD.  589 

Knobel  (strongly  Rationalistic) :  "  This  passage  (Gen.  iii.  22) 
teaches  that  man,  after  partaking  of  the  tree  of  life,  would 
have  become  immortal."  Dr.  iiush,  both  in  his  earlier 
and  later  notes  on  Genesis  (1833,  1852),  says :  "Adam  might 
frequently  have  eaten  (ed.  1859,  '  undoubtedly  often  ate  ')  of 
the  tree  of  life  before  the  Fall  —  sacramental ly,  as  Christians 
eat  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  regard  to  the  driving  from  Para- 
dise, '  lest  he  also  eat  of  the  tree  of  life  and  live  forever,'  Ire- 
nseus  said :  '  God  has  so  ordered  it  that  evil  might  not  be 
immortal,  and  punishment  might  become  love  to  man.'  "  Dr. 
Bush,  who,  had  his  judgment  been  in  the  ratio  of  his  other 
endowments,  would  indisputably  have  taken  the  first  rank 
among  American  commentators  on  the  Old  Testament,  says, 
Gen.  iii.  22,  23 :  "  The  language,  it  must  be  acknowledged, 
seems  to  imply,  that  had  man  tasted  of  the  tree  of  life,  even 
after  his  rebellion,  he  would  have  lived  forever,  and  that  he 
was  expelled  from  Paradise  to  prevent  such  a  consequence." 
The  conclusion,  however,  is  so  little  in  keeping  with  Dr.  Bush's 
theology,  that  he  undertakes  to  reason  it  away  in  a  very  feeble 
and  rationalistic  manner,  in  the  face  of  what  he  concedes  to  be 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  passage. 

Another  hint  toward  the  true  view  of  the  sacramental  mys- 
tery is  given  us  in  the  divine  declaration.  Gen.  ix.  2.  Kiesh  and 
4 :  "  But  flesh  with  the  life  thereof,  which  is  the  ''^""'^• 
blood  thereof,  shall  ye  not  eat."  Literally:  "  But  flesh  with 
its  soul  (z.  e.  life),  its  blood,  ye  shall  not  eat."  Still  more  liter- 
ally :  "  in  its  soul."  At  the  root  of  this  prohibition  lay  a 
great  typical  idea,  which  can  be  fully  understood  only  in  the 
light  of  the  flnished  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
the  light  of  His  sacramental  Supper,  in  which  w^e  participate 
in,  or  have  communion  with  that  sacrifice.  The  command 
was  repeated  again  and  again,  and  the  reason  most  generally 
assigned  was  that  the  blood  is  the  life  of  the  flesh.  But  this 
reason  seems  itself  to  require  an  explanation,  and  this  we  find 
fully  given  in  Leviticus,  the  book  in  which  there  is  the  amplest 
display  of  the  typical  element  of  sacrifice.  In  Lev.  xvii.  10-14, 
we  have  a  full  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  reservation 
of  the  blood.     It  is   especially  the  11th  verse  in  which  the 


690  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

typical  force  of  the  prohibition  is  made  manifest.  Under  the 
Old  Testament  they  actually  ate  of  the  body  of  the  sacrifice, 
but  only  drank  a  symbol  of  its  blood.  It  is  manifest  that 
the  reservation  of  the  blood  pointed  to  something  yet  to  be 
accomplished,  and  hinted  that  the  perfect  communion  in  the 
whole  sacrifice  was  reserved  for  another  dispensation.  Only  in 
the  light  of  this  can  we  fully  appreciate  the  startling  character 
of  our  Lord's  command,  w^hen,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  chosen  race.  He  gave  the  command  to  drink  that  which 
He  declared  to  be  blood  —  and  solved  the  mystery  by  calling 
it  the  blood  of  the  Js'ew  Covenant. 

When  the  three  men.  Gen.  xviii.,  one  of  whom  is  called 
3  The  Super-  Jehovah,  appeared  to  Abraham,  the  patriarch  set 
natural  and  Nat-  bcforc  thcm  brcad,  flesh,  butter,  and  milk,  and  they 
urai  eating.  ^^.^  ^^^  ^^  Yersc  8.  Hcre  was  the  supernatural  eat- 
ing of  the  natural ;  the  eating  of  natural  food  with  the  nat- 
ural organ  of  an  assumed  body,  and  that  body  of  course  super- 
natural. These  same  three  heavenly  persons  did  eat  (Gen.  xix. 
3)  of  unleavened  bread  in  the  house  of  Lot. 

Is  there  a  greater  mystery  in  the  sacramental  eating,  in 
which  the  supernatural  communicates  itself  by  the  natural,  by 
the  natural  bread  to  the  natural  mouth,  than  there  is  in  this 
true  eating,  in  which  the  supernatural  partakes  of  the  natural  ? 
If  God  can  come  down  and  partake  of  human  food  by  human 
organs,  so  that  it  is  aflirmed  of  Jehovah  that  He  did  eat.  He 
can  lift  the  human  to  partake  of  what  is  divine  by  a  process 
which,  though  supernatural,  is  yet  most  real. 

The  relations  of  sacrifice  to  covenant  in  the  Old  Testament 
.  ^.     ,  ..       suiTSest  instructive  parallels  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

4. The  relations  Oo  ■>■  '■  *■ 

of  coveiiaiit  to  Jn  Gen.  XV.  we  have  the  covenant  between  God 
sacrifice.  ^^^^  Abraham  sealed  with  sacrifice.     In  Gen.  xxxi. 

44_4i3^  is  presented  the  idea  of  eating  as  an  act  of  covenant. 
Laban  said  to  Jacob:  "Let  us  make  a  covenant,"  "and  they 
did  eat  there  upon  the  heap ;  "  where  eating  is  the  crowning 
act  of  the  covenant.  But  more  than  this  is  presented  in  this 
chapter,  for  in  the  particulars  of  the  ratification  of  the  cove- 
nant, we  are  told  (verse  04),"  Then  Jacob  ofiered  sacrifice  upon 
the  mount,  and  called  his  brethren  to  eat  brcad :  and  tliey  did 


RELATIONS   OF  SACRIFICE   TO   SACRAMENT.     591 

eat  bread."  Here  is  the  idea,  first,  of  sacrifice  as  the  insepara- 
ble constituent  in  the  covenant ;  then,  of  joint  participation  in 
the  sacrifice  by  eating  of  it,  by  the  parties  partaking  in  the 
covenant  through  it. 

The  idea  of  sacrifice  under  the  Old  Dispensation  sheds  light 
upon  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  Without  5. Ti.e relations 
the  sheddins;  of  blood  is  no  remission."  The  slay-  of  sacrifice  to  sac 
ing  of  the  victim  by  shedding  its  blood,  by  which 
alone  its  death  could  be  effected,  was  properly  the  sacrifice. 
After  the  sacrifice  was  made,  two  things  were  essential  to 
securing  its  end:  first,  that  God  should  receive  it;  second,  that 
man  should  participate  in  it.  The  burning  of  the  sacrifice 
by  fire  from  heaven  was  the  means  of  God's  accepting  it  on 
the  one  side;  and  eating  of  it,  the  means  of  man's  partici- 
pating on  the  other.  The  truth  is,  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Old  Testament  resolves  itself  into  the  very  elements  which 
we  find  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Altar  was  the  Table  of 
the  Lord,  and  the  w^hole  conception  of  sacrifice  runs  out 
into  this,  that  it  is  a  covenanting  Supper  between  God  and 
man. 

The  sacrifice,  through  the  portion  burnt,  is  received  of  God 
by  the  element  of  fire ;  the  portion  reserved  is  partaken  of  by 
men,  is  communicated  to  them,  and  received  by  them.  The 
eating  of  one  portion  of  the  sacrifice,  by  the  offerer,  is  as  real 
a  part  of  the  wdiole  sacred  act  as  the  burning  of  the  other  part 
is.  Man  ofiers  to  God ;  this  is  sacrifice.  God  gives  back  to 
man  ;  this  is  sacrament.  The  oblation,  or  thing  offered,  sup- 
plies both  sacrifice  and  sacrament,  but  with  this  difference, 
that  under  the  Old  Dispensation  God  received  part  and  man 
received  part ;  but  under  the  N'ew,  God  receives  all  and  gives 
back  all:  Jesus  Christ,  in  His  own  divine  person,  makes  that 
complete  which  was  narrowed  under  the  Old  Covenant  by  the 
necessarj^  limitations  of  mere  matter.  But  in  both  is  this 
common  idea,  that  all  who  receive  or  commune  in  the  recep- 
tion of  the  oblation,  either  on  the  one  part  as  a  sacrifice,  or  on 
the  other  as  a  sacrament,  are  in  covenant ;  and  in  the  light  of 
this  alone  is  it,  that  not  on  Calvary,  where  the  sacrifice  was 
made,  but  in  the  Supper,  where  the  sacrifice  is  applied,  the 


592  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Saviour  saj^s  :  "  This  is  tlie  New  Testament  (the  new  covenant) 
in  My  blood." 

The  New  Testament  strikes  its  roots  down  into  the  very  heart 
of  the  Old  Dispensation,  and  to  understand  either 

6.  The     Passo-  t        i         i  i  t 

ver  is  a  type  of  wc  must  study  Doth  togethcr.  Let  us  compare,  in 
the  Supper.  .j.|^^  ^^g^  ^^  ^^iQ  paschal  lamb  and  paschal  supper,  the 
type  and  the  fulfilment,  and  we  shall  see  how  the  earlier  sheds 
liirht  upon  the  later,  and  how  both  placed  in  their  true  rela- 
tion illustrate  each  other.  The  following  are  but  a  part  of  the 
points  of  illustration,  but  they  may  be  sufiicient  to  lead  the 
attentive  student  of  God's  Word  to  search  for  himself. 

1.  The  passo  ver  w^as  to  be  a  lamh.,  and  Christ  is  the  true 
Lamb,  "  They  shall  take  to  them  every  man  a  lamb,^'  are  the 
words  of  the  institution  of  the  passover;  Ex.  xii.  3.  The 
key  to  the  typical  reference  of  the  lamb  is  already  given  in  the 
words  of  Isaiah  (liii.)  "  He  "  (the  man  of  sorrows)  '^  is  brought 
as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter."  But  the  New  Testament  unfolds 
the  typical  reference  in  all  its  clearness.  "  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God  "  (John  i.  29,  36) ;  "  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb;'' 
1  Pet.  i.  12.  It  is  by  this  name  that  Christ  is  revealed  in  the 
glories  of  the  apocalyptic  vision  :  ''  In  the  midst  of  the  elders 
stood  a  Lamh,"  "  the  elders  fell  down  before  the  Lamb : "  "  Worthy 
is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain."  The  title  "  lamb  "  is  applied  to 
our  Lord  between  thirty  and  forty  times  in  the  New  Testament. 

2.  The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  typically  perfect^  and  Christ 
was  truly  perfect.  The  typical  characteristics  of  the  paschal 
lamb  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  dwell  upon.  It  was  to  be  per- 
fect and  unblemished  in  every  respect  to  typify  Him,  who  both 
in  body  and  soul  was  spotless,  "  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  and 
separate  from  sinners."  "Ye  were  redeemed  ....  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  with- 
out spot ;''  1   Pet.  i.  12. 

3.  The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  slain  as  a  type  of  redemp- 
tion, and  Christ  was  to  be  slain  for  the  verity  of  redemption. 
"  The  whole  assembly  shall  Jdll  it;"  Ex.  xii.  6.  "  Who  Jailed 
the  Lord  Jesus;"'  1  Thes.  ii.  15.  "  Lo,  in  the  midst  of  the 
throne  stood  a  Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain.  And  they  sung  a 
new  song,  saying,  Thou  wast  slain.,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to 


THE  PASSOVER  IS  A    TYPE   OF  THE  SUPPER.     593 

God  by  Thy  blood.     Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain.^^ 
Rev.  V.  6-12. 

4.  The  Passover  was  a  typical  sacrifice  in  the  realm  of  the 
natural,  and  Christ  is  a  true  sacrifice  in  the  realm  of  the  super- 
natural. "  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  Passover."  Exodus 
xii.  27.  "Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  ^br  us.''  Christ 
hath  given  Himself  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God. 
"  When  He  said:  Sacrifice  and  ofi:ering,  and  burnt-oflering, 
and  ottering  for  sin,  Thou  wouldst  not,  neither  hadst  pleasure 
therein  ;  which  are  offered  by  the  law ;  then  said  He,  Lo,  I 
come  to  do  Thy  will,  0  God  !  He  taketh  away  the  first,  that 
He  may  establish  the  second.  By  which  will  we  are  sanctified 
through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all." 
Psalm  xl.  6-8;  Heb.  x.  8-10.  "How  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who,  through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  offered  Him- 
self without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead 
works?"  Heb.  ix.  14. 

5.  The  Paschal  Supper  was  a  typical,  natural  eating  of  the 
typical,  natural  lamb  ;  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  true,  supernatural 
eating  of  the  true,  supernatural  Lamb :  "  And  they  shall  eat 
the  flesh  in  that  night;"  Exod.  xii.  8.  "  The  bread  that  I  will 
give  is  My  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world. 
Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  ye  have  no  life  in 
you.  AVhoso  eateth  My  flesh  hath  eternal  life.  He  that  eateth 
My  flesh  dwelleth  in  Me.  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed ; "  John 
vi.  51-56.  "  Thus  shall  ye  eat  it,"  said  Jehovah  ;  Exod.  xii.  11. 
"  Take,  eat,"  said  our  Lord. 

6.  The  Paschal  Supper  was  a  typical,  natural  act ;  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  true,  supernatural  act.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which 
we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ? 
The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ  ?  Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink 
this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord  —  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unwor- 
thily, eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  (or  judgment)  to  himself, 

NOT  DISCERNING  THE  LoRD's  BODY  1  "    1  Cor.  X.  16  ;   xi. 

7.  The  Paschal  Supper  was   a   natural  communion   of  the 

38 


594  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

type ;  the  LorcVs  Supper  is  a  sirpernatural  communion  of  the 
substance. 

8.  The  Paschal  Supper  was  a  feast  by  which  the  typical  was 
presented  in,  with,  and  under  the  natural ;  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  feast  by  which  the  true  is  presented  in,  with,  and  under 

the  natural. 

9.  In  the  Paschal  Supper  the  body  of  the  typical  lamb  was 
received,  together  with  the  bread,  after  a  natural  manner ;  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  the  body  of  the  true  Lamb  is  received, 
together  with  the  bread,  after  a  supernatural  manner. 

10.  The  natural  eating  of  the  typical  Paschal  lamb  belongs 
to  the  sphere  of  lower  reality —  ihat  is,  of  mere  earthly  and 
carnal  fact ;  the  supernatural  eating  of  the  true  Paschal  Lamb 
belongs  to  the  sphere  of  higher  reality  —  ih^t  is,  of  heavenly 
and  spiritual  truth. 

Thus  does  the  dim  twilight  of  the  dawning  Old  Testament, 
if  rio-htly  used,, open  to  us  a  purer  vision  of  truth  than  unwill- 
ing eyes  can  find  in  the  sunlight  of  the  Xew  Testament.  How 
does  the  parallel  run  out  into  the  minutest  particulars  between 
these  representative  institutions  of  the  two  great  dispensations  ! 

11.  Of  the  Paschal  festival,  Jehovah  said  :  "  This  day  shall 
be  unto  you  for  a  memorial;  "  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  incar- 
nate Jehovah  said:  "This  diO  m  rcmemhrcnv.e  of  Me."     Luke 

xxii.  19. 

12.  "The  blood  shall  be  to  you  for  a  token,"  says  Jehovah. 
"This  is  My  blood  of  the  I^ew  Testament  "— "  the  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ"  — "is  guilty  ...  of  the  blood  of  the 

Lord." 

13.  "  When  I  see  the  blood  I  Avill  pass  over  you,  and  the 
■plague  shall  not  rest  upon  you,"  says  Jehovah.  "  This  is  My 
blood,"  says  our  Lord,  "shed  for  you  and  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins.'' 

14.  "  Ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast,''  says  Jehovah.  "  Christ  our 
passover  is  sacrificed  for  us,  therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast,"  1 
Cor.  v.  8,  or  as  Luther,  bringing  out  still  more  clearly  this 
element  in  words,  renders  them :  "  We  also  have  a  Paschal 
lamb,  that  is  Christ,  off'ered  for  us,  wherefore  let  us  keep  pass- 
over."     (Oster-lammy  0 stern.) 


THE  PASSOVER  IS  A    TYPE   OF  THE  SUPPER.     595 

15.  "  Ye  shall  keep  it  to  the  Lord  .  .  throughout  your  gener- 
ations." ''Ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  He  come;"  1 
Cor.  xi.  26. 

16.  "  The  man  that  .  .  forbeareth  to  keep  the  passover, 
even  the  same  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people." 
"  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  H-is  blood, 
ye  have  no  life  in  yoii.'^  "  Whosoever  eateth  leavened  bread, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  oif  from  Israel."  "  He  that  eateth  and 
drinketh  nmuorthily^  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  [or  judy- 
menf]  to  himself,  not  discerniny  the  Lord's  body.  For  this 
cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and  many  sleep." 
1  Cor.  xi.  29,  30. 

17.  "Strike  the  lintel  .  .  with  the  blood."  "This  is  My 
blood  which  iashed  for  many."  ''Ye  are  come  to  the  blood 
of  sprinkliny,''  —  "  elect  .  .  through  sprinkliny  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ." 

18.  "In  one  house  shall  it  be  eaten."  "  Plaving  an  high 
priest  over  the  house  of  God  "  —  "  Christ  whose  house  are  we." 
"Ye  come  into  one  place,''  "The  members  of  that  one  hody^ 
being  many,  are  one  body."  "  The  bread  ^vhich  we  break,  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  For  we  being 
many  are  one  breads  and  one  body :  for  we  are  all  partakers  of 
that  one  bread." 

19.  "  Thou  shalt  not  carry  forth  aught  of  the  flesh  abroad  out 
of  the  house  ;  "  Ex.  xii.  46.  "We  have  an  altar  whereof  they 
have  no  right  to  eat  who  serve  the  tabernacle  ;  "  Ileb.  xiii.  10. 

20.  "  When  a  stranyer  shall  sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep 
the  passover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and 
then  let  them  come  near  and  keep  it;"  Exod.  xii.  48.  "  For  by 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free ;  and  have  been  all 
made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit ;  "  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

21.  "  One  law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-born,  and  unto 
the  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you  ;  "  Exod.  xii.  49.  "  As 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond 
nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female :  for  ye  are  all  one  in 
Christ  Jesus." 


596  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

22.  "  All  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall  keep  it,"  (Hebrew: 
do  it.)  Exod.  xii.  48.  "  Drink  ye  all  of  this  ;  this  do  ye,  as 
oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  Me ; "  Matt.  xxvi.  27  ; 
1  Cor.  xi.  25. 

Origen:*  "Christ  our  passover  is  wslain,  and  this  feast  is  to 
be  kept  by  eating  the  flesh  of  the  Logos:  "    ''  on  ro  ira<s-xa  r\^uM 

ihohr,  ^pjfTTo;  xaj  -^^y\  copra^eiv  £a't)iov'ra    Ty]C.  rTc.pxoc:   tou  Xo^oi;.  J3eza  On  1 

Cor.  V.  7. :  "  Our  whole  life  should  be  in  conformity  with 
Christ,  that  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  in  which  we  were  made 
partakers  of  that  spotless  Lamb  who  was  slain."  Grotius: 
''As  by  the  blood  of  the  Paschal  lamb  the  Israelites  were 
delivered  from  destruction,  so  also  Christians,  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  are  liberated  from  the  common  ruin  of  mankind.  That 
lamb  was  to  be  without  fault,  and  Christ  was  without  fault. 
(See  Luke  xxii.  16.)  Christ,  therefore,  is  the  mystic  passover, 
that  is,  the  Paschal  Lamb."     On  1  Cor.  v.  7. 

Amid  all  these  transitions  from  type  to  fulfilment  the  change 
is  never  from  the  more  true  to  the  less  true,  nor  from  the  real 
to  the  ideal,  but  there  is  either  a  coincidence  in  the  natural 
with  an  elevated  use  in  the  ^N'ew  Dispensation,  or  a  higher 
natural  with  a  true  supernatural  attached  to  it.  There  is  in 
both,  for  example,  a  coincidence  in  a  real  shedding  of  blood 
though  in  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood  there  is  a  supernatural 
efficacy  ;  there  is  in  both  a  real  eating^  but  in  the  one  the  com 
munion  effected  is  earthly,  in  the  other  it  is  heavenly.  This 
then  is  the  point  to  which  these  great  Biblical  truths  irresisti 
bly  lead  us,  that  Christ  is  the  true  paschal  lamb,  and  the 
SUPPER  OF  Christ  is  the  true  paschal  supper.  What  the 
pasclial  lamb  of  the  Old  Dispensation  typified,  Christ  is ;  and 
what  the  Paschal  supper  of  the  Old  Dispensation  typified,  the 
supper  of  Christ  is  ;  and  that  which  is  promised  and  shadowed 
in  the  Paschal  supper  is  given  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  very  deed 
and  substance.  The  supernatural  presence  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood  cannot  be  less  true,  but  is  more  true,  than  the  natu- 
ral presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Paschal  lamb. 

That  the  true  relation  between  the  two  Paschal  lambs  and 
the  two  Paschal  suppers  should  be  most  clear,  it  pleased  God 

♦  Cont.   Celsum  VI II. 


THE  PASSOVER  IS  A    TYPE   OF  THE   SUPPER.     597 

that  there  should  be  a  coincidence  in  point  of  time  between  the 
ending  of  the  shadow  and  the  full  appearing  of  the  substance. 
The  Sun  of  Revelation  stood  at  its  perfect  zenith,  and  the 
shadow  was  cast  no  longer  by  the  substance,  because  the 
shadow  lay  beneath  Christ's  feet.  The  sun  stands  henceforth, 
at  its  noontide,  and  we  are  done  with  shadows  forever.  There- 
fore it  was  written  in  God's  purposes  that  the  true  Paschal 
Lamb  should  be  slain  at  the  feast  of  the  old  Passover.  Our 
blessed  Lord  dwelt  upon  tbe  time  as  in  itself  an  essential  ele- 
ment of  the  perfectness  of  His  work :  "  With  desire  have  I 
desired  to  eat  this  Passover  with  you  before  I  suffer."  Luke 
xxii.  15.  '^  Before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  Jesus  knew  that 
His  hour  was  come."     John  xiii.  1. 

It  w^as  at  the  Passover  time,  in  a  Passover  family  group  of 
disciples,  in  a  room  prepared  for  the  Passover,  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  instituted.  The  bread  which  our  Lord  brake  was 
bread  provided  for  the  Passover.  The  cup  which  He  blessed 
was  filled  with  wine  prepared  for  the  Passover.  It  is  a  new 
Paschal  Supper.  But  where  is  the  slain  lamb  of  this  new 
Paschal  ?  A\^here  is  that  verity/  in  it  of  which  the  unspotted 
lamb  of  the  first  Paschal  is  the  type  ?  Where  is  that  shed 
blood  of  which  the  shed  blood  of  the  first  Paschal  is  the  type? 
Is  it  to  be  characteristic  of  tbe  ^N'ew  Testament  Paschal  Supper 
that  it  shall  have  7io  Paschal  lamb ;  that  there  shall  be  bread 
and  wine^  but  that  the  great  element  of  tbe  souVs  yiourishrneni, 
the  lamb  itself,  of  which  these  were  but  the  accompaniments, 
and  as  attendants  of  which  alone  they  were  given,  that  the  lamh 
shall  be  wanting?  ''  Christ  our  Passover,  our  Paschal  Lamb, is 
slain  for  us  ;  therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast ;  "  1  Cor.  v.  8.  To 
feed  upon  the  Paschal  Lamb  is  the  grand  object  of  the  feast,  and 
if  the  Lord's  Supper  be  but  the  taking  of  bread  and  wine,  the  true 
Paschal  Lamb  not  being  truly  present,  and  not  truly  received^ 
then  is  the  substance  more  shadowy  than  the  shadow,  and  the 
Christian  at  his  Supper  has  less  than  the  Jew  at  his  Pass- 
over. Well  might  a  childlike  faith  breathe  a  sigh,  as  it 
were  an  echo  of  the  innocent  words  of  Isaac :  "  My  father ! 
behold  the  fire  and  the  wood;  but  where  is  the  lamb?"  — 
but  a  faith  like  that  of  Abraham,  in  the  light  of  a  new  dis- 


598  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

pensation,  will  answer:  "My  son,  God  has  provided  Himself 
a  lamb." 

"  They  said  one  to  another:  It  is  manna.  [Sept.:  What  is 
7.  Tiie  manna  this  ?  Ti  csti  touto.)  AndMoses  sald  unto  them, 
in  tiie  desert.  rpj^-^  ^^  ^j^^  hpcad  (Sept.:  outos  0  artos)  which  the  Lord 
hath  given  you  to  eat.  This  is  the  thing  {Sept.:  Touto  to  rema) 
which  the  Lord  hath  commanded  ;  "  Exod.  xvi.  15.  "  I  am 
the  bread  of  life.  Your  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  desert, 
and  are  dead.  This  is  the  bread  {outos  estin  o  artos)  which 
oometh  down  from  heaven,  that  he  that  eateth  of  it  may  not 
die.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven  ; 
if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever ;  and  the 
bread  that  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the 
life  of  the  world  f"  John  vi.  49-57.  "  All  (our  fathers)  did 
eat  the  same  spiritual  meat ; "  1  Cor.  x.  3.  Cyrill  {Lib.  iv. 
in  John  xvi.) :  "  The  manna  was  not,  therefore,  the  living 
food,  but  the  sacred  body  of  Christ  is  the  food  which  nour- 
isheth  to  eternal  life."  Lombard  (Lib.  iv.  Sentcnt,) :  "  That 
bodily  bread  brought  the  ancient  people  to  the  land  of  promise 
through  the  desert ;  this  heavenly  food  will  carry  the  faithful, 
passing  throagh  the  desert,  to  heaven."  Gerhard.,  John  {Loci 
xxii.  cfi.  ii.):  "By  that  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven, 
that  is  by  Christ's  body,  we  are  nourished,  that  we  perish  not 
with  hunger  in  the  desert  of  this  world." 

In  quoting  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  as  bearing  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  may  be  well,  once  for  all,  to  say  that  it  is 
quoted  not  on  the  supposition  that  it  speaks  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per specifically,  but  that  in  stating  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
life-giving  power  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood,  it  states  a  doctrine 
under  which  the  benefits  of  the  sacramental  eating  come  as  a 
Bpecies.  If  we  come  into  supernatural,  blessed  participation 
of  Christ's  flesh. and  blood,  in  the  act  of  faith,  without  the 
Lord's  Supper,  a  fortiori  we  have  blessed  participation  of  them 
in  the  act  of  faith  with  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  sixth  of  John 
treats  of  the  grand  end  of  which  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  grand 
means.  We  partake  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  sacramentally, 
in  order  that  we  may  partake  of  them  savingly.  Of  the  latter, 
not  of  the  former,  the  sixth  of  John  speaks. 


THE   SACRAMENTAL    OBJECTS.  699 

The  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  the  Lutheran  Church 
believes  it  to  be  set  forth  in  th  j  Kew  Testament,  is  thus  defined 
in  her  great  general  Symbol,  the  Augsburg  Confes-     „   -i,,,,  ^^.^ 

„:„.,  .  TcHtiiiiK  nt      (Ji)c- 

Iriiip      of      the 

Of  the  holy  Supper  of  our  Lord,  our  Churches,  L^ra-s  sui.,.er 
with  one  consi^nt,  teach  and  hold  tiu-ticiiyKtute-i. 

1.  That  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  the  sacra- 
mental objects. 

2.  That  the  sacramental  objects  are  truly  present  in  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

3.  That  this  true  presence  is  under  the  form  or  species  of 
bread  and  wine. 

4.  That  present,  under  this  form  or  species,  they  are  com- 
municated. 

5.  That  thus  communicated,  they  are  received  by  all  com- 
municu7its. 

6.  That  the  opposite  doctrine  is  to  be  rejected. 

On  each  and  all  of  these  we  affirm  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine. 

We  affirm,  first,  then  that  it  is  a  Scriptural  doctrine,  that 
the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  the  sacramental  objects  ; 
that  is,  that  apart  from  any  questions  on  other  j  ^^^^  g^cra- 
points,  the  true  body  and  true  blood  of  our  Lord  ""="t=^^  objects. 
are  the  objects  set  before  us  in  the  sacramental  words,  and 
whether  their  presence  be  offered  to  contemplation,  to  memory, 
to  faith,  or  after  a  substantial,  supernatural  manner,  it  is  the 
true  body  and  true  blood  of  Christ,  of  which  we  are  to  make 
our  affirmation,  or  denial,  when  we  state  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

By  true  body,  we  mean  that  body  in  which  our  Saviour  was 
actually  incarnate,  as  opposed  to  His  mystical  body,  which  is 
the  Church,  or  any  ideal  or  imaginary  body.  It  is  conceded 
that  it  was  His  true  body,  not  His  mystical  body,  which  was 
given  for  us  ;  but  Christ,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  says  :  "  This  is 
My  body,  which  is  given  for  ?/ow ;"  therefore  the  sacramental 
object  is  His  true  body.  As  neither  His  mystical  body,  nor 
the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  His  body,  nor  a  sign  nor  symbol 
of  His  body,  nor  a  memorial  of  His  body,  nor  faith  in  Hia 


600  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

body  was  given  for  us,  but  Ilis  true  body  itself  was  given,  it 
and  it  alone,  and  neitber  one  nor  otber  of  all  tbe  objects  sub- 
stituted for  it,  is  tbe  first  sacramental  object. 

By  Ilis  true  blood,  we  mean  tbat  blood  wbicb  was  tbe 
actual  seat  of  His  human  vitality,  that  "  precious  blood  '' 
wherewith  we  are  bought.  It  was  confessedly  His  true  blood 
which  was  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins;  but  Christ,  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  says :  "  This  is  My  blood,  which  is  shed  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  ISTow,  as  neither  a  doctrine  about  His 
blood,  nor  the  efficacy  of  His  blood,  nor  the  Holy  Spirit  uniting 
us  with  His  blood,  nor  a  sign,  symbol,  nor  memorial  of  His 
blood,  nor  faith  in  His  blood  was  shed  for  sins,  and  as  His  true 
blood  alone  was  so  shed,  it,  and  none  other  of  all  the  objects 
substituted  for  it,  is  the  second  sacramental  object. 

Hence  the  objection  is  groundless  that  our  Confession  adds 
to  Scripture  by  saying  that  Christ's  true  body  is  the  sacramen- 
tal object,  for  although  that  adjective  true.,  is  not  used  in  the 
words  of  the  institution,  the  idea  is  there,  if  the  body  which 
was  broken  for  us  is  Christ's  true  body,  and  His  blood  shed 
foi'  us  His  true  blood.  Calvin,  and  even  Zwingli,  were  com- 
pelled to  concede  so  much. 

Hence  also  falls  to  the  ground  the  charge  of  conflicting 
repi  ^sentations,  when  our  theologians  speak  sometimes  of  the 
natural  body,  and  sometimes  of  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  as 
present.  Christ's  true  body.  His  natural  body,  and  His  glorified 
body,  ire  one  and  the  same  body  in  identity.  The  words  true 
and  natural.,  refer  to  its  essence  ;  the  word  glorified  refers  to  its 
condition.  The  glorification  of  His  body  neither  made  it  cease 
to  be  true  nor  natural.  That  is,  it  was  no  more  an  unreal, 
ideal,  or  imaginary  body,  after  the  glorification  than  before. 
It  was  identically  the  same  body,  but  with  a  constant  and 
plenary  exercise  of  glorious  properties.  What  He  possessed, 
but  did  not  ordinarily  use  in  the  days  of  His  humiliation.  He 
now  constantly  and  fully  exercises,  and  this  new  condition  is 
called  His  glorification.  Though  His  natural  and  true  body  is 
present,  its  condition  is  glorified.  But  though  its  condition  is 
glorified,  it  is  not  in  virtue  of  that  glorification,  but  because 
of,  and  through  its  union  as  one  person  with  God,  that  it  is 


THE   TRUE  PRESENCE,  601 

present.  This  presence  is  spiritual^  when  that  word  is  opposed 
to  carnal,  but  it  is  not  spiritual  when  that  word  is  opposed  to 
true,  as  if  His  presence  were  something  wrought  by  our  spirits. 
His  body  is  a  spiritual  body,  as  opposed  to  the  present  condi- 
tions and  limitations  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  it  is  not  spiritual 
as  opposed  to  real  and  natural.  All  the  pretended  contradic- 
tions of  our  theology  vanish  when  the  terms  of  that  theology 
are  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  it  uses  them. 

Wq  affirm  it,  secondly,  to  be  a  Scriptural  doctrine  that  these 
sacramental  objects,  to  wit:  the  true  body  and  true     2.    The  true 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  truly  present  in  the  Lord's  presence. 
Supper :    Vere  adsint  —  wahrhaftiglich  gegenwartig  sei. 

We  oppose  a  true  presence,  first,  to  the  Zwinglian  theory, 
that  the  presence  of  these  objects  is  simply  ideal,  a  presence  to 
our  memory  or  contemplation  :  secondly,  to  the  theory  set  forth 
by  Bucer  in  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  further  elaborated  by 
Calvin,  and  now  generally  known  as  the  Calvinistic,  to  wit: 
that  the  body  and  blood  are  present  in  efficacy  through  the 
working  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  believing  elect.  In  opposi- 
tion to  the  first,  we  affirm  it  to  be  Scriptural,  that  the  presence 
is  one  wrought  not  by  our  ideas,  memories,  or  contemplation, 
but  is  a  presence  equally  true,  whether  w^e  do  or  do  not  think, 
remember,  contemplate,  or  believe.  In  opposition  to  the 
second,  we  affirm,  that  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  body  and  blood 
is  not  separable  from  them,  but  is  wrought  by  them  truly 
present ;  that  this  efficacy  is  direct  and  personal,  not  mediated 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  by  Christ  Himself,  substantially  pres- 
ent ;  that  this  presence  does  not  depend  for  its  reality  (but 
alone  for  its  salutary  results)  upon  the  faith  of  the  receiver, 
and  that  its  sole  causes  are  the  divine  personality  and  benefi- 
cent will  of  the  Institutor  of  the  Supper. 

We  prove  this,  first,  by  the  demands  of  all  those  types  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  contemplate  Christ  as  the  Paschal  Lamb, 
who  is  to  be  present  in  that  nature  in  which  He  was  slain,  not 
after  the  shadowy  mode  of  the  old  dispensation,  but  after  the 
true  mode  of  the  new,  in  the  Kew  Testament  Paschal.  It  is 
through  His  human  nature  that  Christ  is  our  Paschal  Lamb 
sacrificed  ;   and,  therefore,  it   must  be  through   His  human 


602  CONSERVATIVE    UEFORMATION. 

nature  that  Christ,  onr  Taschal  Lamh,  is  eaten. ^  If  it  was 
not  through  His  divinity,  separate  from  His  humanity,  that  He 
was  sacrificed  upon  the  cross,  it  cannot  be  that  through  His 
divine  nature,  separate  from  His  humanity.  He  is  given  to  us 
at  His  table. 

AVe  prove  it,  secondly,  by  the  demands  of  the  type  of  Old 
Testament  sacrifices,  which  w^ere  not  only  to  be  offered  to  God, 
but  to  be  partaken  of  by  the  priests  and  offerers.  That  body 
and  blood  which  were  offered  to  the  Father,  and  by  Him 
accepted,  must  also  be  partaken  of  by  those  for  whom  they 
w^ere  offered,  and  the  partaking  must  be  a  true  one,  as  the 
offering  itself  was  true  —  but  in  order  to  a  true  partaking, 
there  must  be  a  true  presence. 

Thirdly,  the  words  of  the  institution  force  us  to  this  con- 
clusion.    For  if  it  even  be  granted  for  a  moment,  for  argu- 
ment's sake,  that  these  words  might  be  taken  symbolically, 
the  symbol  only  postpones,  by  one  process,  the  general  result, 
but  by  no  means  sets  it  aside.     A  symbol  must  be  the  symbol 
of  some  real  thing ;  and  there  must  be  a  point  of  analogy  to 
constitute  a  symbol  ;  a  sign  must  point  to  the  reality  of  which 
it  is  a  sign  ;  a  symbolical  act  presupposes  a  real  corresponding 
act ;  and  something  symbolically  done  to  a  symbol  implies  that 
something,  to  which  that  is  analogous,  is  to  be,  or  ought  to 
be,  really  done   to   a   real  object.     Why,  then,  is   bread    the 
symbol  of  Christ's  body  — wot    (as  we  have   already  shown) 
the  symbol  of  a  doctrine  about  that  body,  or  of  its  efficacy, 
but  of  the  body  itself?     What  is  the  point  of  analogy  ?     It 
must  be  that  both  are  food.     Then  Christ's  body  must  be  con- 
ceded to  be  true  food,  or  bread  cannot  be  the  symbol  of  it. 
But  if  Christ's  true  body  be  conceded  to  be  true  food,  then  the 
symbol  has  brought  us  to  the  acknowledgment  of  a  true  pres- 
ence somewhere  —  but  if  there  be  a  true  presence  anywhere, 
it  will  not  be  denied  that  it  is  in  the  Lord's  Supper.     Further- 
more, if  bread  be  the  symbol  of  a  true  body,  breaking  bread 
the  symbol  of  a  true  breaking  of  a  true  body,  then  the  eating 
of  that  bread  must  be  the  symbol   of  a  true  eating  of  a  true 
body  ;  but  if  it  be  granted  that  this  takes  place  anywhere,  it 
Avill  not  be  denied  that  it  takes  place  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 


THE  TRUE  PRESENCE.  603 

Thus  is  the  theory  of  the  symbol  really  subversive  of  itself, 
unless  it  be  contended  that  we  eat  symbolically  in  the  Supper 
what  we  eat  truly  elsewhere,  which  no  one  is  likely  to  main- 
tain. The  parallelism  may  be  made  more  obvious  by  present- 
ing it  in  a  tabular  view : 

SYMBOL.  REALITY. 

1.  Bread.  1.  True  Body. 

2.  Breaking  of  Bread.  2.  True  Breaking  of  Trae  Body. 

3.  Eating  of  Broken  Bread.       3.  True  Eating  of  True  Body, 

truly  Broken. 

4.  Cup  (Contents).  4.  True  Blood. 

5.  Pouring  Out.  5.  True  Blood,  truly  shed. 

6.  Drinking.  6.  True     Drinking     of     True 

Blood,  truly  shed. 

But  it  is  impossible,  on  sound  principles  of  interpretation,  to 
find  a  symbol  in  the  words  of  the  Institution.  The  Eucharist 
combines  three  characters  which  forbid  such  an  idea.  1.  It 
is  a  Supper.  2.  It  is  Testamentary.  3.  It  is  a  Covenanting 
Bite. 

1.  When  at  a  Supper  a  guest  has  offered  to  him  anything, 
with  the  request  to  eat,  and  with  assignment  of  the  reason, 
This  is  so  and  so  —  all  laws  of  language  lead  us  to  expect  that 
the  thing  so  offered  shall  be  not  the  sign,  symbol,  or  memo- 
rial of  that  which  is  to  be  eaten,  but  shall  be  the  very  thing 
designated.  If  the  words  of  the  Institution  had  been  :  ''  Jesus 
said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  bread,''  would  not  the  man  be  thought 
to  trifle  who  would  urge  that  He  gave  them,  not  bread,  but  a 
sign,  symbol,  or  memorial  of  bread?  Would  he  help  himself 
by  appealing  to  interpretations  of  dreams,  to  parables,  meta- 
phors, figures,  and  symbols  ?  By  no  means.  Men  would  ask 
him  for  an  instance  in  which,  at  a  supper,  any  one  had  said: 
"  Take,  eat,  this  is  bread,"  meaning  that  it  was  not  bread,  but 
a  symbol  of  bread.  Who  would  say,  seriously,  at  a  supper, 
handing  a  man  a  book  :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  sponge-cake,"  mean- 
ing that,  as  a  sponge-cake  is  light  and  pleasant  to  the  body,  so 
is  the  book  of  which  it  is  a  symbol  a  light  work,  and  pleas- 
ant to  the  mind?     Why  is  it  that  the  Supper  of  our  Lord 


604  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

stands  separate  in  the  world  in  this,  that  in  it  alone,  in  any 
sense,  symbolical  or  sacramental,  imaginary  or  real,  the  guests 
are  invited  to  participate  in  the  body  of  Him  of  whom  it  is  the 
memorial  ?  Does  not  this  fact  alone  demonstrate  that  Christ's 
body  is  solitary  in  its  powers  and  relations  to  men ;  that  lan- 
guage in  regard  to  it  belongs  to  a  wholly  different  sphere  from 
that  which  pertains  to  the  bodies  of  other  men ;  that  we  can 
affirm  of  it  what  would  be  worse  than  blasphemy,  what  would 
be  incoherent  raving,  if  made  in  regard  to  any  but  Christ  ? 
Would  any  man  at  a  supper  devoted  to  the  memory  of  Wash- 
ington offer  bread,  and  say  :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  W^ashington's 
body  "  ?  Would  he  use  such  language  at  all,  or,  if  he  did,  could 
he  mean  thereby  that  the  spirit  of  W^ashington,  or  his  princi- 
ples, or  the  efficacy  of  the  work  he  had  wrought  through  his 
body,  are  the  support  of  our  civil  life,  as  bread  supports  the 
natural  life  ?  These  suppositions  look  so  monstrous  that  we 
can  hardly  think  of  them  gravely  as  they  really  are,  that  is  as 
actual  parallels  to  the  mode  of  interpretation  substituted  for 
that  of  our  Church,  by  men  who  pronounce  our  doctrine 
unscriptural.  It  is  not  overstating  the  fact  to  declare  that  as 
a  question  of  the  laws  of  language,  apart  from  philosophical 
speculation  or  doctrinal  system,  the  meaning  of  the  words : 
"  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body,"  are  as  clear  as  any  passage  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation.  Dr.  Hodge  says  that  the  words  have 
been  the  subject  of  an  immense  amount  of  controversy,  but  so 
have  been  the  clear  words  which  teach  the  Trinity,  the  Divin- 
ity of  our  Lord,  the  eteridty  of  future  punishments ;  not  that 
they  are  not  clear,  but  that  men  will  not  admit  them  in  their 
obvious  sense.  A  doctrine  is  not  proved  to  be  disputable  sim- 
ply because  it  is  disputed. 

Finally,  to  put  this  point  in  a  just  light,  suppose  that  our 
Lord  at  the  Supper  had  said :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  bread,"  and 
that  men  had  arisen,  who,  in  the  face  of  this  clear  testimony, 
had  said  it  was  not  bread  of  which  He  spoke,  but  His  body, 
and  His  body  only,  how  would  the  patrons  of  the  Zwinglian 
theory,  which  in  that  case  would  have  been  related  to  the  words 
supposed,  as  the  Lutheran  view  now  is  to  the  words  used,  how 
would  they  have  received  such  an  interpretation  ?   They  would 


THE   TRUE  PRESENCE.  605 

have  received  it  with  astonishment  and  reprobation,  just  as 
their  own  interpretation  deserves  to  be  regarded,  wlien  our 
Lord  Jesus,  stating  what  is  tliat  very  thing  for  the  reception 
of  which  the  Supper  was  instituted,  says :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is 
My  body.''  If  our  Master's  words  would  have  been  clear 
according  to  the  laws  of  language,  in  the  terms  we  have,  for 
illustration's  sake,  supposed  llim  to  have  used,  then  equally 
clear,  according  to  the  same  laws,  are  the  words  which  He  did 
use.  He  who  believes  that  the  words  supposed  would  have 
proved  that  our  Lord  desired  to  communicate  to  His  disciples 
hread^  must  believe,  if  he  be  consistent,  that  the  words  He 
actually  used  prove  that  He  desired  to  communicate  to  them 
His  body.  If  he  objects  to  the  latter  inference,  then  his  objec- 
tion is  derived,  not  from  the  laws  of  language,  but  from  phil- 
osophical or  rationalistic  principles,  which  he  is  determined 
shall  override  the  clear  word.  Hence,  we  repeat  the  thought, 
and  close  this  part  of  the  argument  with  it,  that  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  of  the  Institution,  as  a  pure  question  of  language, 
is  as  clear  as  the  meaning  of  any  part  of  the  Word  of  God  — 
and  that  meaning  is  the  one  which  our  Church  accepts  and 
confesses.  If  the  absolute  authority  of  God's  Word  stands, 
the  sacramental  doctrine  of  our  Church  stands,  for  if  it  be 
incontrovertible  that  it  is  unsound  to  interpret,  "  This  is 
bread,"  as  meaning,  "  This  is  not  bread,  but  is  My  body  only," 
it  is  equally  incontrovertible  that  it  is  unsound  to  interpret, 
''-  This  is  My  body,"  as  meaning,  "  This  is  not  My  body,  but 
bread  only." 

2.  The  words  of  the  Eucharist  are  also  Testamentary  —  they 
are  the  Words  of  the  Will  of  our  Lord,  wlio  is  about  to  die,  and 
who  invests  His  heirs  with  that  whose  possession  gave  them 
all  that  He  desired  to  secure  to  them.  But  who  ever  heard  of 
a  will  which  bequeathed  signs  or  symbols  —  not  real  posses- 
sions—  to  the  heirs?  If  a  will  were  produced  in  which  the 
Testator  had  said:  It  is  my  wish  and  will  that  M.  I^.  should 
have  such  and  such  a  tract  of  land  and  so  many  thousand  dol- 
lars ;  and  when  M.  K.  came  to  claim  land  and  money,  he  was 
told  that  this  "  tract  of  land  "  was  a  sign  or  symbol  of  the 
Heavenly  Canaan,  which  is  the  home  of  the  soul,  as  an  earthly 


606  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

tract  of  land  may  be  the  residence  of  the  body  ;  and  that  the 
thousands  of  dollars  were  simply  a  sign  of  incorruptible  treas- 
ures in  the  other  world  ;  and  that  the  testator  meant  only  that 
it  was  his  wish  and  will  that  M.  IJn'.  should  have  these  good 
things  of  the  other  world,  would  he  consider  this  sound  inter- 
pretation ?  When  Christ  gives  us  Himself,  He  gives  us  every- 
thing. His  body  and  blood  are  the  organs  of  His  Deity.  In 
giving  them  to  us  He  gives  all  to  us ;  but  in  giving  to  us 
the  mere  signs  of  them,  He  would  give  us  very  little.  All 
bread  is,  as  such,  equally  a  symbol  of  His  body ;  all  wine  is  a 
symbol  of  His  blood.  Give  us  but  these  symbols  at  His  Testa- 
mentary Supper,  and  we  have  at  the  Lord's  Supper  only  what 
we  may  have  at  every  meal.  What  we  want  is  Christ  Himself, 
not  symbols  of  Him. 

But  were  the  case  less  clear  in  regard  to  the  Testamentary 
words,  were  it  possible  with  equal  propriety  to  embrace  a  strict 
or  a  loose  acceptation  of  them,  still  the  law  holds  good,  that 
where  a  dispute  arises  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  settle  which 
one  of  two  meanings  is  the  correct  one,  the  preference  shall  be 
given  to  the  more  literal  of  the  two ;  and  this  rule  is  good 
here.  H  we  run  the  risk  of  erring,  let  it  be  by  believing  our 
Lord  too  far,  too  closely,  too  confidingly,  rather  than  by  doubt- 
ing or  by  trying  to  explain  away  the  natural  import  of  His 
words. 

3.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Covenanting  Institution.  But  in 
a  Covenant  as  in  a  Testament,  the  things  mutually  conveyed  and 
received  are  not  the  signs  nor  symbols  of  things,  but  things 
themselves.  Whenever,  as  in  the  case  of  a  will,  disputes  arise 
as  to  a  literal  or  a  laxcr  meaning,  that  interpretation,  other 
things  being  equal,  is  always  safest  which  adheres  most  closely 
to  the  very  letter  of  the  terms. 

But  the  character  of  the  covenanting  words  is  yet  further 
settled  by  their  obvious  allusion  to  the  terms  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant. "  Moses  took  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  and 
sprinkled  both  the  books  and  all  the  people,  saying :  This  is 
the  blood  of  the  Testament  which  God  hath  appointed  unto 
you."  It  is  with  these  words  in  His  mind  that  our  Lord  says : 
*'  This  is  My  blood  (not  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats)  of  the 


THE   TRUE  PRESENCE.  607 

Few  Testament  "  (not  of  the  Old).  Surely,  if  in  the  forming 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  which  is  a  covenant  of  shadows,  types 
and  symhols,  there  was  true  hlood,  not  the  sign  or  symhol  of 
blood,  much  more  in  the  forming  of  the  New  Covenant,  which 
is  one  of  body,  substance,  and  reality,  we  have  not  the  symbol 
of  blood,  but  the  true  blood  of  the  great  sacriticc. 

4.  Let  us  now  look  for  a  moment  at  the  words  of  the  Insti- 
tution singly:  "  Take,  eat ;  this  is  My  body  given  for  you." 
The  Lutheran  Church  confesses  that  each  w^ord  in  this  sentence 
is  to  be  understood  literally.  The  taking  is  a  true  taking,  the 
eating  a  true  eating.  "  This  "  means  this  —  this  which  I  tell 
you  to  take,  this  which  I  tell  you  to  eat,  this  is,  truly  is, "  My 
body,"  My  true  body  truly  given  for  My  disciples.  How  have 
those  who  favored  a  symbolical  interpretation  evaded  the  natu- 
ral force  of  these  words  ? 

Against  a  sense  so  natural,  so  direct,  so  universally  received 
by  the  Holy  Church  of  all  ages,  in  its  great  assertion  of  an 
objective  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  its  opponents 
were  bound  to  produce,  not  merely  as  probable  a  sense,  but  one 
more  probable.  They  w^ere  bound  in  undertaking  to  shake  the 
faith  of  Christendom,  to  produce  an  interpretation  capable  of 
a  clear  statement,  and  of  invincible  proofs.  They  were  morally 
bound  to  have  some  agreement  as  to  what  was  to  be  substituted 
for  the  received  interpretation,  and  by  what  principles  its  neces- 
sity was  to  be  demonstrated  from  God's  Word.  This  they  have 
attempted  for  nearly  three  centuries  and  a  half,  and  up  to  this 
hour  the  failure  has  been  total  in  every  respect.  Luther  records 
seven  of  their  conflicting  interpretations.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  seventeenth  century  there  were  twenty-eight  contradic- 
tory views  urged  by  Calvinists.  Vorstius  confessed  that  "  he 
hardly  knew  wdiether  the  figure  is  in  the  copula  or  the  pre- 
dicate"—a  confession  really  that  he  did  not  know  that  it  is 
in  either.  But  Zwingli  happily  suggests  that  among  all  their 
diversities,  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  are  agreed  in  the 
effort  to  throw^  dow-n  the  citadel.  So  that  is  done,  it  matters 
little  what  arms  are  used.  The  efforts  of  our  century  have 
brought  the  opponents  of  the  literal  interpretation  no  nearer 
together.     They  are  as  far  as  ever  from  a  fixed  sense  of  the 


608  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

words,  or  a  principle  by  wliieh  the  sense  can  ever  be  fixed. 
There  is  no  position  midway  between  the  implicit  acceptance 
of  the  literal  sense,  and  the  chaos  of  eternal  doubt. 

The  first  view  which  was  arrayed  against  that  of  our  Church 
was  the  view  of  Carlstadt.  He  admitted  the  literal  force  of 
every  term  in  the  Institution,  and  interpreted  thus:  The 
Saviour  said,  "  Take,  eat,"  and  came  to  a  full  pause.  Then 
pointing,  as  it  were,  with  His  finger  to  His  body,  He  uttered  as 
a  distinct  proposition,  "  This  body  is  My  body."  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  add  that  so  preposterous  an  interpretation  found 
few  friends.  Zwingli  himself  rejected  it,  and  Carlstadt  with- 
drew it.* 

The  word  Take  these  interpreters  have  usually  construed 
literally,  though  why  an  imaginary  body,  or  the  symbol  of  a 
body,  might  not  be  taken  mentally,  they  cannot  say.  Men  do 
not  open  doors  because  a  door  is  a  symbol  of  Christ:  why 
should  they  take  and  eat  bread  because  it  is  a  sym^bol  of  His 
body?  A  symbol  is  addressed  to  the  mind  ;  it  derives  its  being 
and  takes  its  shape  from  the  mind  of  the  user,  and  is  intellec- 
tually received  by  the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  The 
mere  symbol  cannot  be  so  identified  with  its  object,  as  that  an 
inference  from  the  object  is  logically  applicable  to  the  symbol, 
or  from  the  symbol,  logically  applicable  to  the  object.  AVe  can- 
not say  of  one  door  more  than  another,  "  That  door  is  Christ," 
but  still  less  could  we  draw  an  inference  from  the  symbol  to 
the  object,  or  from  the  object  to  the  symbol. 

The  symbolic  theory,  even  were  we  to  grant  its  assumption, 
can  give  no  intelligible  reason  for  the  statement,  "  This  bread 
is  My  body;  This  cup  is  My  blood,"  for  as  a  symbol,  this 
bread  is  no  more  Christ's  body  than  any  other  bread ;  as  one 
lamb,  one  vine,  or  one  shepherd,  is  no  more  a  symbol  of  Christ 
than  another.  The  symbol  is  founded  on  the  common  quality 
of  the  thing  symbolizing ;  the  innocence  of  all  lambs,  the 
nutritious  character  of  all  bread,  the  means  of  access  furnished 
by  every  door.  It  is  evident  that  as  it  is  only  after  Christ's 
blessing  the  bread,  that  it  is  true  that  "  This,"  which  He  now 
commands    us  to  "  Take,  eat,"  is  His  body  — and   that   this 

*Walch:   Bibl.  Theol.  II.  419. 


THE  TRUE  PRESENCE.  609 

bread  was  just  as  much  a  symbol  of  Ills  body  before  the  bless- 
ing as  after  it,  and  was  and  is,  just  as  much  a  symbol  out  of  the 
sacrament  as  in  it  —  that  the  "  this  "  cannot  refer  to  the  bread 
merely,  nor  can  the  bread  in  the  Supper  be  no  more  than  a 
symbol.  There  is  true  body  and  true  bread,  so  related  that 
the  true  bread  is  the  medium  of  the  sacramental  communion 
of  the  true  body,  and  for  this  reason  only  could  it  be  tru<^  that 
"  this  "  bread,  more  than  any  other,  could  be  called  the  body 
of  our  Lord.  Just  as  it  would  be  blasphemy  to  say,  "  Man  is 
God,"  and  is  yet  literally  true  of  Christ,  "  This  man  is  God," 
so  would  it  be  blasphemy  to  say,  "  Bread  is  Christ's  body,"  and 
yet  it  is  literally  true,  "  This  bread  is  Christ's  body."  This 
man  is  God  personally,  because  of  the  personal  union,  and  This 
bread  is  the  body  of  Christ  sacramen tally  because  of  the  sac- 
ramental union.  We  cannot  hand  an  empty  purse  and  say, 
"This  is  a  thousand  dollars  ; "  but  we  can  hand  a  fall  one  and 
say  so. 

The  word  Eat  they  have  interpreted  literally,  though  why 
the  eating  ought  not  to  be  done  symbolically  or  mentally,  to 
correspond  with  the  symbolical  or  mental  character  of  the 
body,  they  cannot  say.  Certainly  there  are  plenty  of  instances 
of  a  figurative  use  of  the  word  "  Eat,"  while  there  are  none  of 
such  a  use  of  the  word  "  is."    The  Quakers  are  more  consistent. 

The  word  "  this,"  they  have  interpreted  variously.  The 
renowned  Schwenckfeld  gets  at  its  meaning  by  reading  the 
Saviour's  words  backwards  thus:  My  body  is  this,  that  is, 
My  body  is  bread  —  nourishes  the  soul  as  real  bread  nourishes 
the  body.  That  is,  he  makes  the  subject  "  this,"  the  predicate  ; 
and  the  predicate  "  My  body,"  the  subject.  Those  who  have 
entered  the  lists  against  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  usually 
insist  that  "  this  "  qualifies  "  bread  "  understood,  that  is,  the 
pronoun  touto^  which  is  neuter,  qualifies  the  noun  which  is 
masculine.  Determined  to  be  fettered  by  no  laws  of  language, 
they  abrogate  the  rule  —  that  a  pronoun  shall  agree  with  the 
noun  it  qualifies  in  gender. 

Some  theologians  who  have  attacked  the  faith  of  our  Church, 
have,  in  order  to  make  their  work  easy,  been  pleased  to  invent 
arguments  and  positions  for  her.     They  have,  of  course,  been 


610  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

able  to  do  with  their  imaginary  arguments  for  her  what  they 
could  not  do  with  her  real  arguments  for  herself.  They  have 
found  that  upsetting  the  men  of  straw,  of  their  own  making, 
was  very  different  from  uprooting  the  everlasting  foundations 
of  the  temple  reared  by  God.  One  of  these  weak  inventions 
is,  that  our  Church  adopts  this  ungrammatical  construction 
of  a  neuter  pronoun  with  a  masculine  noun,  and  that  hence 
she  after  all  deserts  the  literal  sense  of  the  word,  and  that 
her  interpretation  really  is :  "  This  (bread)  is  not  My  body, 
but  m,  vnth.,  and  under  it  My  body  is  given."  But  as  the 
Church  does  not  consider  the  neuter  pronoun  as  qualifying 
the  masculine  noun,  and  does  not  interpolate  the  word  bread, 
but  takes  our  Lord's  words  precisely  as  He  utters  them,  all 
this  ingenuity  is  thrown  away.  It  only  shows  how  she 
might  have  argued,  had  she  possessed  as  little  grammar,  as 
little  logic,  and  as  little  reverence  for  her  Master's  words 
as  is  exhibited  by  such  antagonists.  From  the  words: 
''  This  is  My  body,"  she  only  gathers  this :  ''  This  is  Christ's 
body ; "  and  neither  on  the  one  hand  that  the  bread  is  not 
His  body,  nor  on  the  other  that  His  body  is  given  in,  with, 
and  under  it.  She  acknowledges  that  the  ecclesiastical  (not 
Biblical)  phrase  "  This  bread  is  Christ's  body,"  sets  forth  a 
truth,  as  the  Church  uses  and  understands  it ;  and  from  a 
comparison  of  text  with  text,  she  knows  that  the  bread  is  the 
medium  by  which,  in  which,  with  which,  under  which  the 
body  is  imparted,  but  she  reaches  this  by  no  reading  out  of  the 
text  what  is  in  it,  nor  reading  into  it,  what  is  no  part  of  it ; 
but  by  interpreting  every  word  in  that  natural  and  proper 
sense,  which  is  fixed  by  the  laws  of  language.  Our  Saviour 
says,  Tak(5,  and  we  take  ;  He  says,  Eat,  and  we  eat ;  He  says : 
This  (which  He  has  just  told  us  to  take,  eat)  is  My  body,  and 
we  believe  it.  The  affirmation  is  as  literal  as  the  command, 
and  we  believe  the  one  as  we  obey  the  other,  to  the  letter,  no 
more  understanding  His  affirmation  to  be.  This  is  not  My  body, 
than  we  understand  His  command  to  be,  Do  not  take.  Do  not 
eat. 

''  My  hody^'''  some  have  interpreted  to  mean  "  symbol  of  My 
body,"  but  as  this  would  make  the  Saviour  say  that  the  "  sym- 


THE   TRUE  PBESENCE.  611 

bol  of  His  body,"  not  His  "body  itself,  was  given  tor  us,  the 
symbol  of  Ilis  blood,  not  His  blood  itself  was  shed  for  us,  this 
view  is  generally  abandoned.  It  was  the  view  of  QEcolanipa- 
dius,  the  Melanchthon  of  Zwingli  in  the  Swiss  Reformation,  but 
far  greater  than  his  master.  He  was  too  good  a  scholar  to  be 
ignorant  that  the  metaphor,  if  there  be  one,  must  lie  in  one  of 
the  nouns  connected,  and  not  in  the  substantive  verb  which 
connects  them.  As  the  bread  was  indubitably  literal  bread,  he 
saw  that  he  must  either  make  "  body  "  metaphorical,  or  aban- 
don the  idea  of  metaphor.  The  later  divines  of  this  general 
school  rejected  this  theory  with  an  earnestness  which  shows 
that  they  were  ashamed  of  it.  Thus  Beza:*  "The  words 
which  follow,  to  wit,  '  which  is  given  for  you  '  and  '  which  is 
shed  for  you,'  compel  us  to  understand  the  words  of  the  very 
substance  itself  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  "  We  do  not 
doubt  that  by  the  term  body  is  meant  that  very  body  which  was 
assumed  for  our  sakes  and  crucified."  This  view  of  Beza  was, 
indeed,  the  view  of  the  whole  body  of  Calvini'stic  theologians, 
with  few  and  inconsiderable  exceptions.  The  sole  refuge  left, 
therefore,  for  the  disputer  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  is 
in  the  word  "is."  The  word  "is,"  Zwingli  f  and  those  who 
follow   him    say   means   "  represents,   signifies,   is   a    symbol 

*  Epis.  5,  ad  Alaman.  III.  202,  and  Adv.  Illjricum,  217. 

•{-Zwingli  did  not  originate  this  interpretation.  He  adopted  it  from  Honius,  a 
contemporary  whose  name  is  now  almost  forgotten.  Zwingli's  account  of  the 
growth  of  his  own  theory  is  very  interesting.  He  says:  "  I  saw  that  the  words 
♦  This  is  My  body,'  are  figurative,  but  I  did  not  see  in  what  word  the  figure  lay.  At 
this  point,  by  the  grace  of  God,  it  happened  that  two  learned  and  pious  men 
came  to  consult  on  this  matter;  and  when  they  heard  our  opinion  (for  they  had 
concealed  their  own,  for  it  was  not  then  safe  to  express  opinions  on  the  subject 
freely)  they  thanked  God,  and  gave  me  an  untied  package,  the  letter  of  a  learned 
and  pious  Hollander  (Honius).  Li  it  I  found  this  precious  pearl  that  'is'  here  means 
'signifies.''  When  we  were  compelled  to  explain  our  opinions  openly  it  seemed 
more  discreet  to  open  with  that  key  the  word  in  which  the  figure  lies,  than  sim- 
ply to  say:  It  is  a  figure."— Ojt>era,  Turic,  1832.   Vol.  TIL  606. 

This  frank  history  shows  that  Zwingli  framed  his  theory  first,  and  cherished 
It  for  some  time  before  he  could  see  how  the  Word  of  God  was  to  be  harmonized 
with  it.  Even  when  he  came  to  see  that  "  is  "  means  "signifies,"  he  could  find 
no  evidence  of  it,  till  it  was  revealed  to  him  in  that  extraordinary  vision  of  the 
man  of  dubious  color,  which  was  so  mercilessly  ridiculed  in  the  old  contro- 
versies. 


612  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of."  Hence  they  draw  the  inference  that  our  Saviour  means: 
"  This  [bread]  [represents,  is  a  symbol  of]  My  body."  Because 
then  it  is  to  be  a  symbol  of  His  broken  body,  He  breaks  this 
bread,  and  because  it  is  to  be  a  symbol  of  His  body  given,  He 
gives  this  bread,  and  because  it  is  to  be  a  symbol  of  His  body 
taken,  they  take  this  bread  —  and  what  then  ?  — because  it  is 
to  be  a  symbol  of  His  body  eaten,  they  eat  this  bread.  The 
symbol  does  not  help  its  friends  very  far  nor  very  long. 

We  have  shown,  that  the  laws  of  language  forbid  the  appli- 
cation of  the  symbol  here,  even  if  the  words  in  the  abstract 
would  allow  of  it.  We  now  go  farther,  and  maintain  that  the 
word  '^is"  cannot  have  the  sense  of  "signify  or  be  a  symbol 
of."  Taking  the  two  terms  as  convertible,  as  they  have 
always  been  taken  in  this  controversy  by  those  w^ho  defend 
them,  we  prove  this  :  * 

1.  By  the  fact  that  no  translations,  ancient  or  modern,  with 
any  pretension  to  character,  so  render  the  word.  We  assert, 
after  a  careful  examination  of  all  of  those  that  have  most 
reputation,  that  not  one  so  translates  the  word,  whether  they 
originate  in  the  Eastern,  Western,  Lutheran,  or  Reformed 
Churches.  E"o  man  of  character  has  ever  dared  to  insert  into 
the  text  of  his  translation  :  This  is  a  symbol  of  My  body. 
Where  such  terms  as  "  means,"  ''  amounts  to,"  or  "  signifies  " 
are  used,  though  a  superficial  reader  might  imagine  that  they 
are  substituted  for  "  is,"  they  are  really  designed  to  express  an 
idea  involved  in  the  predicate.  This  use  of  them  rests  on  the 
fact  that  "  is  "  always  means  "  is."  Twice  two  amount  to  four 
means  that  twice  two  are  four.  Leo  signifies  lion,  means  that 
Leo  is  lion.  But  we  can  neither  say  twice  two  signify  four, 
nor  Leo  amounts  to  lion,  still  less  that  twice  two  are  a  symbol 
of  four,  or  Leo  is  a  symbol  of  a  lion. 

*Zwingli  (De  Vera  et  Falsa  Relig.  Opera,  Turici.,  1832.  III.  257,  258):  "This 
signifie's  (significat)  My  body.  .  .  This  thing,  to  wit,  which  I  offer  you  to  eat,  is  the 
symbol  (symbolum  est)  of  My  body.  .  .  This  which  I  now  command  you  to  eat  and 
drink  shall  be  to  you  a  ,v/mbol  (symbolum  erit).  .  .  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  st/m- 
holic  brend  (panem  symbolicum)  "  — and  so  innumerably.  "To  be  a  symbol  of," 
or  "to  signify"  in  the  sense  of  "be  a  symbol  of,"  is  the  characteristic,  fixed 
Zwinglian  interpretation  of  the  word  "is." 


METAPHOR,  613 

2.  Ko  impartial  dictionary  of  the  Greek,  whether  general  or 
'N'ew  Testament,  assigns  such  a  meaning  to  the  word.  Where 
such  a  meaning  is  assigned,  it  is  manifestly  for  the  very  pur- 
pose of  promoting  this  false  view,  for  doctrinal  reasons, 
either  rationalistic,  as  in  such  dictionaries  as  Schleusner's,  or 
Zwinglian,  as  in  Parkhurst's. 

3.  ]N^o  good  dictionary  of  the  English  assigns  such  a  mean- 
ing to  the  English  verb  "  to  be ;  "  no  good  dictionary  of  the 
Hebrew  or  of  any  language  of  which  we  know  anything,  assigns 
such  a  meaning  to  the  verb  corresponding  in  each  with  our 
verb  to  be,  or  with  the  Greek  Eimi. 

4.  The  expositors  and  dogmaticians  who,  for  philosophical 
or  theological  reasons,  have  been  forced  to  maintain  that  the 
word  "  is  "  means  "  is  a  symbol  of,"  have  utterly  failed  to  pro- 
duce a  solitary  instanr-e  in  which  the  word  is  so  used. 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  passages  that  have  been  cited  to 
prove  that  "  is  "  may  mean  "  is  a  symbol  of."  Passages  such 
as  these  are  favorites :  ''lam  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches." 
"  I  am  the  door."  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life."  But  if  the  word 
"  is  "  means  "  is  a  symbol  of,"  then  Christ  would  say  :  ''  I  am 
the  symbol  of  a  vine,"  "  I  am  the  symbol  of  a  door,"  "  I  am  the 
symbol  of  bread,"  which  is  absurd. 

]^or  do  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  x.  4,  help  the  symbolical 
theory  at  all :  "  They  all  drank  of  that  Spiritual  Rock  that 
followed  (or  went  with  them):  and  that  Rock  was  Christ." 
The  meaning  of  that  passage  is,  that  the  real  spiritual  Rock 
which  attended  them  was  the  manifested  Jehovah,  that  is,  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  Christ  Himself  in  His  preexistent 
state.  God  is  a  rock  ;  God  is  our  true  support ;  our 
true  support  is  God.  1  he  resolution  into  the  literal 
lies  in  the  word  rock,  not  in  the  word  "  is."  So  when  we  say, 
Christ  is  the  door,  the  vine,  the  foundation,  the  corner-stone, 
the  resolution  of  the  expression  into  what  is  absolutely  literal, 
turns  not  upon  the  word  "  is,"  but  on  the  word  "  door," 
*'  vine,"  or  other  noun,  as  the  case  may  be.  If  you  take  Web- 
ster's Dictionary,  or  any  other  good  dictionary,  you  will  not 
tind  that  the  substantive  verb  "  to  be  "  means  to  signify,  but 
you  will  liud  that  the  fifth  meaning  given  to  the  word  door  is 


614  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

"  means  of  approach  ;  "  and  you  will  find  it  quotes,  as  proof  of 
that  meaning :  ''  I  am  the  door  ;  by  ]\Ie  if  any  man  enter  in,  he 
shall  be  saved."  But  if  when  we  say,  Christ  is  the  door,  we 
do  not  mean  Christ  is  the  symbol  of  the  door,  neither  can 
we  mean,  when  we  say  the  door  is  Christ,  that  the  door  is  the 
symbol  of  Christ.  AVe  mean  in  the  one  case,  that  Christ  is 
really  and  truly,  not  symbolically,  the  door  —  that  is,  He  is  the 
real  means  of  approaching  God  ;  and  in  the  other,  that  the  true 
and  real  means  of  approach,  the  real  door,  is  truly  (not  sym- 
bolizes) Christ.  That  is,  the  predicate  and  subject  are  just  the 
same  in  the  second  form  of  the  sentence  as  in  the  first.  "  Christ " 
is  the  subject,  "  door  "  the  predicate,  in  both  ;  but  in  the  second 
there  is  an  inversion  of  the  more  common  order,  in  which  the 
subject  comes  first.  When  I  point  to  a  particular  door,  and 
say,  that  door  is  a  symbol  of  Christ,  the  word  door  is  literal, 
and  means  a  door  of  wood  ;  but  when  I  say  the  door  is  Christ, 
the  w-ord  door  is  not  taken  literally,  but  the  word  is  must  be 
so  taken.  Christ  is  the  vine,  the  vine  is  Christ  —  Christ  is  not 
a  symbol  of  the  vine,  but  is  the  true  vine  itself;  the  true  vine 
is  not  a  symbol  of  Christ,  but  is  Christ.  We  say  that  Wash- 
ington was  the  pillar  of  his  country,  or  the  pillar  of  our  coun- 
try was  Washington  ;  no  more  meaning  that  the  pillar  was  a 
symbol  of  Washington,  than  that  Washington  was  the  symbol 
of  a  pillar ;  but  meaning  that  Washington  was  the  true  pillar 
of  our  country,  and  that  the  true  pillar  of  our  country  was 
Washington  ;  the  word  pillar  meaning  in  each  case  a  support. 
We  could  not  lay  hold  of  a  literal  pillar  and  say  :  Lean  on  this, 
trust  in  this  ;  this  is  that  General  Washington  who  fought 
for  onr  country.  We  could  not  bring  a  man  to  a  vine  and  say  : 
Attach  yourself  to  this  vine  ;  this  is  Christ :  or  direct  him  to  a 
particular  door,  and  say :  Go  through,  enter  in  ;  this  door  is 
Christ. 

There  is  no  parallel  in  the  interpretation  of  dreams.  "  The 
three  branches  (are)  three  days."  Gen.  xl.  12.  "  The  seven 
good  kine  (are)  seven  years,  and  the  seven  good  ears  (are) 
seven  years."  Gen.  xli.  10.  ''  The  seven  thin  kine  (are)  seven 
years  of  famine."  1.  There  is  no  "  are  "  in  the  original.  2. 
The  "  branches,"  "  kine,"  and  "  ears  "  are  not  real  branches, 


ZWINGLI'S  REVELATION.  615 

real  kine,  nor  real  ears,  but  the  ideals  of  a  dream.  It  is  not 
three  branches,  but  the  three  branches  of  the  dream  that  are 
three  days.  The  seven  dream  -  branches,  dream -kine,  and 
dream -ears  are,  to  speak  literally  —  to  drop  the  idea  of  a 
dream  —  seven  years.     3.  If  "  is,"  in  interpretins: 

•^  .  .  '  IS  Dreams. 

a  dream,  and  because  it  so  mterprets,  meant  "  sig- 
nifies," it  would  have  no  bearing  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  wliich 
is  not  the  interpretation  of  a  dream.  4.  ''  The  seven  empty 
ears  shall  be  seven  years  of  famine."  Does  that  mean  "shall 
signify,"  as  if  they  did  not  equally  signify  then?  or  does  it 
mean  that  the  empty  ears,  if  we  express  Avhat  they  really  are 
and  are  to  be,  shall  be  "seven  years  of  famine"?  5.  Would 
the  inference  be  justifiable  from  this  dream,  that :  Take,  eat ; 
these  are  seven  ears  prepared  for  your  food  —  means  that  there 
were  no  ears,  but  only  symbols  of  ears  ?  Pluck  and  strip ; 
these  are  branches  covered  with  delicious  fruit  —  that  there 
were  no  branches,  no  fruit,  but  symbols  of  them  ?  If  it  would 
not,  there  is  no  parallel. 

When  Zwingli  supposed  that  he  saw  that  "  is  "  means  "  sig- 
nifies, is  a  symbol  of,"  a  formidable  difiiculty  still  stood  in  the 
way.  He  could  not  find  a  passage  in  the  Old  or  ^ew  Testa- 
ment in  which  it  had  that  sense,  when,  as  he  expresses  it,  "  it 
was  not  conjoined  with  a  parable."  "We  began,  therefore,  to 
think  over  the  whole,  revolve  the  whole ;  still  the  examples 
which  occurred  were  the  same  I  had  used  in  the  Commentary 
(on  True  and  False  Religion),  or  of  the  same  kind.  I  am  about 
to  narrate  a  fact — a  fact  of  such  a  kind  that  I  zwingirsReve- 
would  wish  to  conceal  it,  but  conscience  compels  me  i''ti»»-i=^-^--^"-i^- 
to  2^our  forth  what  the  Lord  has  impa^^ted^  though  I  knoiv  to  what 
reproach  and  ridicule  I  am  about  to  expose  myself.  On  the 
thirteenth  of  April  I  seemed  to  myself,  in  a  dream,  to  contend 
with  an  adversary,  a  writer,  and  to  have  lost  my  power  of 
speech,  so  that  what  I  knew  to  be  true  my  tongue  failed  me  in 
the  eftbrt  to  speak.  .  .  Though,  as  concerns  ourselves,  it  be  no 
more  than  a  dream  we  are  telling,  yet  it  is  no  light  thing  that 
w^e  wT.re  taught  by  a  dream,  thanks  be  to  God,  to  whose  glory 
also  we  are  telling  these  things.  AVe  seemed  to  be  greatly  dis- 
turbed.    At  this  point,  from  a  machine,"  (the  theatrical  appa- 


616  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

ratus  Ly  which  supernatural  persons  were  made  to  appear  ia 
the  air,)  ''  an  adviser  was  present  (whether  he  was  black  or 
white  I  do  not  at  all  remember ;  for  it  is  a  dream  I  am  telling), 
who  said  :  You  weakling  1  answer  him  that  in  Exod.  xii.  11,  it 
is  written : '  It  is  the  Phase— thsit  is,  the  Passing  over  of  the  Lord.' 
On  the  instant  that  this  apparition  showed  itself  I  sprung  from 
my  couch.     I  first  examined  the  passage  thoroughly  in  the 
Septuagint,  and  preached  upon  it  before  the  whole  congrega- 
tion with  all  my  strength.     This  sermon  dispelled  the  doubts 
of  the  students,  who  had  hesitated  because  of  the  obstacle  of 
the  parable  ''  (that  "  is  "  meant  "  signify  "  only  when  a  Para- 
ble was  explained).     ''  Such  a  Passover  of  Christ  was  celebrated 
on  those  three  days  as  I  never  saw,  and  the  number  of  those,  it 
is  thought,  who  look  back  to  the  garlic  and  flesh-pots  of  Egypt 
is  going  to  be  far  less."*     This   narrative   speaks  for  itself. 
Zwingli  confesses  that  he  came  to  the  Scripture  to  find  argu- 
ment for  opinions  already  formed  —  opinions  held,  while  the 
search  in  which  he  was  engaged  for  something  to  sustain  them 
was   still  fruitless.     He  claims,  evidently,  the  character   of  a 
supernatural  revelation  for  his  dream ;  and  there  is  something 
inimitable  in  the  simple  egotism  of  his  expectation  that  his 
discovery  is  going  to  damage  the  cause  of  the  hankerers  after 
the  flesh-pots   of  Egypt,  by  which    he   gracefully  designates 
Luther  and  the    Conservative   Church    of  the   Reformation. 
And  yet  the  passage  which  to  Zwingli  seemed  so  decisive  does 
not  help  him  in  the  least.    In  the  words,  Exod.  xii.  11,  "  It  (is) 
the  Lord's  Passover,"  Zwingli  assumes  that  "it"  means  ''the 
lamb,"  and  that  the  sentence  consequently  results :  "  The  lamb 
is  the  Passover,"  that  is,  the  lamb  signifies,  or  is  the  sign  or 
symbol  of  the  Passover.     But  1 :  The  word  "  is  "  is  not  there. 
This  was  at  once  objected  to  Zwingli's  view  by  those  whom  he 
styles  "  the  brawlers  "  (vitilitigatores).     He  meets  it  by  main- 
taining that  "  no  one,  unless  he  be  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  is  una- 
ware that  Hua  and  Ilayo,  Hamah  and  Hanah,  are  constantly 
taken  for  '  he  is,'  '  it  ?.s,'  '  they  are,'  where  they  are  not  con- 
joined with  the  verb."t     P>ut  the  answer  was  not  to  the  point. 
Zwingli  was  to  furnish  a  passage  from  the  Word  of  God  in 

*Z\vinglii  Opera.  Turici.  1832.  III.  341.  f  Opera.  III.  344. 


ZWINGLI'S  REVELATION.  617 

which  "  is"  means  "  a  symbol  of."  The  passage  on  which  he 
relies  does  not  have  the  word  "  is  "  at  all.  He  replies  in  effect, 
the  Word  is  understood,  and  if  it  were  there  it  would  have  that 
sense.  But  the  fact  that  it  is  not  there  shows  that  it  is  the  mere 
suhstantive  copula,  and  can  have  no  such  sense  as  Zwingli 
claims.  If  "is"  be  involved  in  the  subject,  then  all  symbolical 
possibility  ynust  lie  in  the  predicate.  Zwingli  makes  no  appeal  to 
the  Septuagint  on  this  point :  First,  because  the  thing  demanded 
was  an  instance  of  a  divine  use  of  "  is  "  in  the  sense  "  be  a 
symbol  of."  It  was  acknowledged,  on  the  conservative  side, 
that  the  Hebrew  substantive  verb  has  the  same  general  force 
in  the  Greek,  and,  therefore,  Zwingli  appealed  to  the  Hebrew. 
He  could  not  appeal  here  to  the  Septuagint,  for  ft  is  but  a 
human  translation.  The  question  was  not  one  of  Greek,  but 
of  the  divine  use  of  the  substantive  verb,  common  to  both 
Hebrew  and  Greek.  Second:  Apart  from  this,  the  Septuagint 
is  decisive  against  Zwingli,  for  it  makes  the  proposition  imper- 
sonal:  "Passover  is  to  the  Lord,"  not  at  all:  "The  Lamb  is 
the  passover."  2  :  The  "  it  "  does  not  refer  to  the  lamb  —  but 
to  the  whole  transaction  which  takes  place  with  girded  loins, 
and  the  eating  of  the  lamb.  The  "  it  "  is  used  indefinitely,  as 
if  we  would  say,  "  Let  us  gather  round  the  cheerful  hearth, 
let  us  light  up  the  children's  tree,  for  it  is  Christmas."  The 
reason  of  the  name  "  Passover  "  follows  in  the  twelfth  verse. 
"  It  is  the  Lord's  Passover.  For  I  will  pass  through  the  land." 
What  sense  is  there  in  the  words  :  The  lamb  is  a  symbol  of  the 
Passover,  for  I  will  pass  through  it?  3:  In  no  sense  in 
which  the  word  "  Passover"  could  hold,  whether  in  the  act  of 
angelic  transition,  or  the  feast  instituted  to  commemorate  it, 
could  the  lamb  signify,  or  be  a  symbol  of  it.  The  lamb  was 
that  whose  body  was  literally  slain,  and  whose  blood  was  liter- 
ally shed,  in  making  the  Passover  Covenant.  It  was  not  a 
symbol  of  the  passing  over  of  the  angel,  for  there  is  no  analogy 
between  a  slain  lamb  and  a  passing  over.  It  was  not  a  symbol 
of  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  but  the  chief  material  of  the 
feast.  ]Sor  was  the  lamb  a  memorial  of  the  original  passing 
over.  The  Passover  feast  itself,  as  a  whole,  was.  :N'or  was 
the  lamb  a   memorial  of  this  feast,  but   simply  a  chief  ele- 


618  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

meut  in  it.  4  :  The  word  "  Passover  "  here  means  the  festival, 
not  the  transition  itself.  5 :  If  the  lamb  could  be  called  the 
Passover  feast,  it  would  be  so  called,  not  because  the  lamb  sig- 
nified the  feast,  but  because  the  feast  was  made  on  the  lamb. 
6 :  If  the  words  had  been  used  at  an  actual  supper,  and  had 
been  "  Take,  eat.  This  is  the  body  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  slain 
for  you,"  could  Zwingli's  interpretation  of  the  verse  in  ques- 
tion overthrow  the  literal  meaning  of  "  is  "  in  them  ?  If  not, 
there  is  no  parallel. 

The  ALLEGORY  secms  no  better  as  a  parallel.  The  allegory 
leads  us  into  a  world  where  a  being  or  thing  is  the  designed 
ideal  representative  of  another.  The  bundle  on 
'" '^■''  *  Christian's  back  is  the  burden  of  sin.  The  lions 
are  terrors  in  the  way.  Yanity  Fair  is  the  godless  world,  the 
dark  river  is  death  —  that  is,  says  the  slovenly  interpreter,  sig- 
nifies or  is  a  sign  of.  Xow  an  actual  burden  in  real  life  may 
be  a  symbol  of  a  spiritual  burden  ;  living  lions  may  be  symbols 
of  the  terrible  ;  a  real  river  a  symbol  of  death  ;  but  the  bundle, 
lions,  river  of  the  allegory  are  as  ideal  as  the  symbol.  In  an 
allegory,  moreover,  the  framer  has  the  reality  in  his  mind 
before  the  ideal  representative.  The  real  is  throughout  the 
subject^  the  allegorical  representative  the  predicate.  Hence,  to 
put  them  in  their  proper  attitude  both  as  to  time  and  logical  rela- 
tion, we  should  say  the  burden  of  sin  is  the  bundle  on  Chris- 
tian's back ;  the  terrors  are  the  lions  ;  death  is  the  dark  river. 
That  is  the  meaning  even  in  the  inverted  order  in  which  we 
first  put  them  —  but  the  burden  of  sin  is  not  the  symbol  of  a 
bundle  —  death  not  the  symbol  of  a  river.  Hence  the  struc- 
ture of  an  allegory  not  only  does  not  sustain  the  Zwinglian 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  institutor,  but  overthrows 
it  —  for  it  demonstrates  that  the  subject  is  not  the  symbol  of 
the  predicate,  but  Zwingli's  theory  assumes  that  it  is.  But 
were  it  otherwise,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  no  allegory. 

A  more  dangerous  falsity  in  interpretation,  than  the  assump- 
tion that  the  word  ''  is  "  may  be  explained  in  the  sense  of  "  sig- 
nify," or  ''  be  a  symbol  of,"  is  hardly  conceivable.  Almost 
every  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God  will  melt  under  it.  "  The 
Word  was  God"  would    mean    "The  Word  sii^-nified  was  a 


ALLEGORY.  619 

symbol  of  God."  "God  is  a  Spirit"  would  mean  "God  is 
the  symbol  of  a  Spirit."  When  it  is  said  of  Jesus  Christ :  "  This 
is  the  true  God,"  it  would  mean  that  lie  is  the  symbol  or  image 
of  the  true  God.  By  it  Christ  would  cease  to  be  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life,  and  would  be  a  mere  symbol  of  them  ;  would 
no  longer  be  the  door,  the  vine,  the  Good  Shepherd,  the  Bishop 
of  Souls,  but  would  be  the  symbol  of  a  door,  the  sign  of  a  vine, 
the  figure  of  a  shepherd,  the  representation  of  a  Bishop.  This 
characteristic  of  the  use  of  ''  is  "  is  essential  to  the  very  moral- 
ity of  language,  and  language  itself  would  commit  suicide  if 
it  could  tolerate  the  idea  that  the  substantive  verb  shall  express 
not  substance  but  symbol.  Creation,  Redemption,  and  Sancti- 
fication  would  all  fuse  and  be  dissipated  in  the  crucible  of  this 
species  of  interpretation.  It  would  take  the  Bible  from  us, 
and  lay  upon  our  breasts,  cold  and  heavy,  a  Swedenborgian 
night  mare  of  correspondences.  The  Socinian,  and  the  Pela- 
gian, and  all  errorists  of  all  schools,  would  triumph  in  the 
throwing  of  everything  into  hopeless  confusion,  and  the  Infidel 
would  feel  that  the  Book  he  has  so  long  feared  and  hated,  de- 
prived, as  it  now  would  be,  of  its  vitality  by  the  trick  of  inter- 
preters, could,  henceforth,  be  safely  regarded  with  contempt. 

Well  might  Luther  write  upon  the  table  at  Marburg  :  "  This 
is  My  body  ; "  simple  words,  framed  by  infinite  wisdom  so  as 
to  resist  the  violence  and  all  the  ingenuity  of  men.  Rational- 
ism in  vain  essays  to  remove  them  with  its  cunning,  its  learn- 
ing, and  its  philosophy.  Fanaticism  gnashes  its  teeth  at  them 
in  vain.'  They  are  an  immovable  foundation  for  faith  in  the 
Sacramental  mystery,  and  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  shake  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  with  the  true  body 
and  true  blood  which  He  gave  for  our  redemption  on  the  Cross, 
is  truly  present  in  the  Holy  Supper,  to  apply  the  redemption 
through  the  very  organs  by  which  it  was  wrought  out.  The 
sacrifice  was  made  once  for  all  —  its  application  goes  on  to  the 
end  of  time.  The  oftence  of  the  Master's  Cross  now  rests  upon 
His  table,  and  thither  the  triumph  of  the  Cross  shall  follow  it. 
On  the  Cross  and  at  the  table  the  saints  discern  the  body  of 
the  Lord,  and  in  simple  faith  are  determined  to  know  in  both 
nothing  but  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified. 


620  COySEnVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

The  Tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  deckxres  that 

III  Ti.e  S)e  ^^^^  ^^'^^  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present 
cies  of  Br.>a.i aii.i  iu  the  Supper  "  UNDER  THE  FORM  {uuter  der  Geskdt) 
sTanuatiln;' rI;:  OF  BREAD  AND  WINE."  The  word  ''  fomi  "  and  the 
mani=<m;andRa-  Gemiau  word  "  Gestolt^''  wliich  it  translates,  are 
renderings,  confessedly,  of  the  Latin  term  "  spe- 
cies." The  Apology  (164,  54,  57 :  illis  rebus  quae  videntur, 
sichtharcn  Dinycn)^  gwmg  an  equivalent  of  the  word  "  species  " 
or  "form,"  defines  it,  "those  things  which  are  seen,  the  visi- 
ble things,  bread  and  wine,"  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  (674, 
126)  speaks  of  "  the  elements  or  visible  species  or  form  of  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine."  The  word  "  species  "  belongs  to 
the  common  terms  of  Theology,  and  is  used  by  Roman  Catho- 
lic, Lutheran,  and  Zwinglian  authors.  It  is  used,  for  example, 
in  the  articles  of  the  Marburg  Colloquy,  which  were  signed  by 
Zwingli.  In  classic  Latin,  "  species  "  not  only  means  " a  form," 
but  "  an  object  presented  to  the  sight ;  "  not  only  "  figure," 
but  the  "  nature  of  a  thing."  It  also  has  the  meaning  "  kind  ;  " 
hence  the  phrase  "  communion  in  both  kinds,"  "  both  species." 
So  in  English  we  use  the  w^ords  "  species  "  and  "  kind  "  as 
convertible. 

The  emphasis  in  the  Tenth  Article  is  not  on  the  word  species^ 
but  on  bread  and  icine  —  not  as  if  it  meant  the  species^  not  the 
reality  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  species  or  kinds  of  true  bread 
and  true  wine^  not  of  the  accidents  of  them.  In  a  w^ord,  it  asserts 
that  the  visible  objects  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  real  bread  and 
real  wine.  The  doctrine  of  the  Confession  is  that  the  visible 
and  earthly  element  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  true  bread  and  true 
wine  {not  their  accidents)^  as  the  invisible  and  heavenly  element 
is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (not  their  symbols^  nor  the 
memory  of  them,  nor  their  spiritual  virtue). 

The  words,  first  of  all,  reject  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation. 

Secondly  :  They  repudiate  the  Romish  doctrine  of  sacramen- 
tal concomitance ,  to  wit :  that  because  of  their  natural  associa- 
tion, or  concomitance,  both  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
given,  witli  each  of  the  8}»ecies  sacramentally,  that  is,  with  the 
bread  both  body  and  blood  are  given  sacramentally,  and  with 


THE  species;  of  bread  and  wine.         621 

the  wine  both  hlood  and  body  are  given  saoxunentally.  The 
Confession  implies  that  the  body  only  is  given  sacraincntallyhy 
tlie  bread,  the  l)lood  only  is  sacramnitallij  given  by  the  wine, 
that  from  a  natural  concomitance  we  cannot  argue  to  a  sacra- 
mental one,  for  the  sacramental  is  wholly  supernatural,  and  its 
character  depends  on  the  will  of  Christ,  who  has  appointed  one 
species  for  the  sacramental  impartation  of  His  body,  the  other 
for  the  sacramental  impartation  of  His  blood,  li  natural  con- 
comitance were  identical  with  sacramental  impartation,  it  would 
follow  that  our  Lord  had  appointed  the  cup  needlessly ;  that 
the  priest  receives  in  the  Mass  the  body  and  blood  twice,  the 
blood  by  concomitance  with  the  species  of  bread,  and  the  body 
by  concomitance  with  the  species  of  wine.  And  if  a  natural 
concomitance  holds  good  for  the  sacramental  character  of  the 
bread  in  communion,  it  w^ould  hold  equally  good  for  its  sacri- 
ficial character  in  the  Mass.  One  kind  in  the  Supper  would 
logically  justify  one  kind  in  the  Mass. 

Thirdly  :  In  this  the  Confession  implies  that  the  two  species 
or  kinds,  bread  and  wine,  must  both  be  used  in  order  to  having 
a  complete  communion,  and  thus  the  doctrine  is  set  forth,  which 
involves  a  rejection  of  the  Romish  abuse  of  the  denial  of  the 
cup,  a  denial  which  applies  not  only  to  the  laity,  but  to  the 
communicant^  whether  lay  or  priestly.  The  priestly  offerer  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  drinks  of  the  cup,  in  making  the  sacrifice^ 
but  when  the  same  man  approaches  the  table  as  a  communi- 
cant, he  receives  only  the  bread.* 

*  As  this  distinction,  though  very  important,  is  so  little  noticed,  even  by  con- 
troversialists, and  is  so  little  known,  as  often  to  excite  surprise  among  intelligent 
Protestants,  the  author  addressed  a  note  to  Prof.  George  Allen  (whose  accuracy 
as  a  scholar  can  only  be  equalled  by  his  courtesy  as  a  gentleman),  asking  of  him 
for  the  facts  of  the  usage  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  of  which  he  is  a  member, 
which  illustrate  what  we  have  asserted.  From  him  we  obtained  the  following 
statements :  1.  There  is  not  so  properly  a  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity,  as  such, 
as  a  restriction  of  it  to  the  celebrant  in  the  Mass.  2,  When  a  priest  receives 
the  Viaticum,  the  Communion  on  his  death-bed,  he  does  not  receive  the  cup. 
3.  On  Holy  Thursday,  in  each  diocese,  the  bishop  celebrates,  and  the  priests  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Communion  only  in  one  kind —  ihey  do  not  receive  the  cup,  4.  In 
the  Mass  of  the  Presanctified  (on. Good  Friday),  the  celebrant  himself  receives 
only  in  one  kind.  5.  The  only  occasion  on  which  the  cardinals  receive  the  cup 
in  communing,  is  when  the  Pope  celebrates  on  Holy  Thursday;  and  this  is  done 
on  the  ground  "that  in  the  Feast  of  the  Institution  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament, 


622  CONSERVATIVE    RE  FORM  ATI  OX. 

Fourthly  :  In  limiting  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
first  to  the  communicants  {vescentihus),  and  secondly,  to  them 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  [adsint  in  Coena),  the  Confession  implies 
that  nothing  has  a  sacramental  character  apart  from  its  sacra- 
mental use  :  That  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
is  such  that  only  the  communicants  can  actualize  it  —  it  is  not 
a  presence  for  mice  and  worms,  but  for  man:  and  that  this 
presence  is  limited  to  the  Supper:  The  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  cannot  be  reserved,  laid  up  in  monstrances,  or  carried 
in  procession,  any  more  than  the  Holy  Ghost  can  be  laid  up  in 
a  Bible,  or  carried  about  in  one. 

Fifthly  :  In  this  denial  of  a  change  of  the  elements,  and  in 
the  maintenance  that  the  presence  is  one  to  be  actualized  sole!}/ 
by  the  sacramental  eating  and  drinking^  is  involved  the  rejection 
of  the  doctrine  that  the  species  in  the  Supper  are  to  be  wor- 
shipped, or  that  Christ  Himself  is  to  be  worshipped  as  in  the 
species.  We  can  and  should  worship  Christ  at  His  table,  but 
precisely  as  we  worship  Him  away  from  it.  He  did  not  say, 
Take,  worship,  but,  Take,  eat.  He  did  not  say.  This  is  My 
Divinity,  but  this  is  My  body,  and  the  bread  which  we  break 
is  not  the  shrine  of  His  Deity,  but  the  ''  Communion  of  His 
body."  The  presence  of  Christ,  which  is  distinctive  of  the 
Sacrament,  is  sacramental  only,  that  is  to  say,  we  reach  Christ 
there  as  we  reach  Him  nowhere  else,  only  as  His  will  makes  a 
specific  difference.  We  commune  in  His  broken  body  and  His 
shed  blood  there,  as  it  is  impossible  to  commune  with  them 
elsewhere,  but  we  can  worship  Christ  there  in  no  other  mode 
than  we  worship  Him  everywhere. 

On  the  FIRST  of  these  points,  as  conditioning  ail  the  rest,  we 

they,  on  that  day,  represent  the  chosen  disciples."  6.  The  canons  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  Sess.  XXL,  Can.  II.,  say:  "Si  quis  dixerit,  sanctam  ecclesiam  catho- 
licam  non  justis  causis  et  rationibus  adductam  fuisse,  ut  laicos  aique  edam  dericos 
non  conficientes  sub  panis  tautummodo  specie  communicaret,  aut  in  eo  errasse : 
anathema  sit." 

These  facts  compel  a  candid  Protestant  to  admit,  upon  the  one  hand,  that 
simply  as  a  communicant,  as  distinct  from  an  oflFerer  of  the  Sacrifice,  simply  as 
one  who  comes  to  receive  and  not,  also,  to  impart  a  benefit,  the  priest  is  put  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  precisely  on  the  same  level  as  the  layman;  but  they 
also  do  much  to  intensify  the  feelings  of  a  Protestant  that  there  is  both  to  priest 
and  people  an  exclusion  from  the  communion  in  both  kinds  —  the  people  never 
receive  the  cup,  and  the  priesthood  never  receive  it  ns  communicants. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  REJECTED.  623 

Bhall  dwell  more  fully  than  on  the  others.  The  word  "  Tran- 
suhstantiation  "  was  as  unknown  to  pure  antiquity  as  the 
doctrine  couched  under  it.  It  first  appears  in  the  Twelfth 
Century.  The  first  official  use  of  the  term  was  made  in  the 
Lateran  Council  of  1215.  The  doctrine  of  Tran-  TranHui-stantia- 
substantiation  affirms  that  at  the  consecrating  tio"  ••'■jecte.i. 
words  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  ceases  to  be,  and  in 
their  place,  clothed  with  their  accidents  or  properties,  are  the 
body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  no 
bread,  but  simply  Christ's  body,  looking  like  bread,  tasting 
like  bread,  feeling  like  bread,  nourishing  the  body  like 
bread,  corrupted  like  bread,  eaten  by  mice  like  bread,  con- 
joined with  poison  killing  the  body  like  poisoned  bread,  bear- 
ing on  it  the  baker's  mark  like  bread ;  but  no  bread,  only  body ; 
that  there  is  no  wine,  but  Christ's  blood,  smelling  like  wine, 
red  if  the  wine  have  been  red,  white  if  the  wine  have  been 
white,  intoxicating  like  wine,  spilling  like  wine,  leaving  perma- 
nent stains  like  wine,  poisoning,  if  mixed  with  poison,  like 
poisoned  wine,  pronounced  by  chemical  analysis  to  be  wine,  de- 
positing the  acids  and  salts  like  wine,  but  throughout  no  wine. 
The  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  is  a  doctrine  not  only 
untaught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  directly  in  conflict  w^ith  their 
letter.  It  is  in  conflict  with  the  analogy  of  faith,  overthrow- 
ing logically  indubitable  parts  of  the  faith ;  it  is  in  conflict  with 
the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  to  which  are  required  two  real  ele- 
ments, the  real  earthly  as  well  as  the  real  heavenly  ;  it  is  in 
conflict  with  a  fair  parallel  with  Holy  Baptism,  in  which  it  is 
not  pretended  by  the  Church  of  Rome  that  there  is  any  tran- 
substantiation of  the  water ;  it  is  a  doctrine  utterly  unknown 
to  Christian  antiquity,  the  demonstrable  invention  of  ages  of 
corruption,  resisted  by  man}^  of  the  greatest  theologians  even 
under  the  Papacy,  and  the  nurse  of  superstition,  and  of  the 
grossest  idolatry  ;  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  testimony  of  the 
senses,  subversive  of  all  the  laws  of  moral  evidence,  and  by 
overstretching  faith  into  credulity,  tends  to  produce  by  reac- 
tion, universal  skepticism.  An  acute  nation  which  swings 
into  Transubstantiation,  may  swing  out  of  it  into  Atheism. 

This  doctrine  of  the  mediaeval  Church  of  Rome  w^as  very 
early,  and  very  positively,  rejected  by  Luther,  and  our  other 


624  CONSERVATIVE    UEFORMATIOK. 

great  Reformers.  In  1520,  Luther,  in  his  book  on  the  Baby- 
Tonish  Captivity,  says  :  "  For  more  than  twelve  hundred  years 
the  Church  hehl  the  right  faith,"  (in  regard  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,)  "-  and  never  do  the  \\o\y  fathers  make  mention  of  that 
jyortentous  iconl  and  dream^  Transubstantiation."  In  1522,  in 
his  book  against  Henry  VIIL,  he  says,  "What  they  (the 
Romanists)  hold  in  regard  to  Transuhstantiation  is  the  merest 
jjgmcnt  of  the  godless  and  blind  Thomists ; "  and  again,  "I 
declare  it  to  be  ii/ipioas  and  blasphemous  for  any  one  to  assert 
that  the  bread  is  transubstantiated."  It  were  easy,  if  need 
were,  to  fill  pages  with  testimony  of  this  kind  ;  but  it  is 
needless. 

The  Romanists,  in  their  Confutation,  objected  to  the  Tenth 
Article  that  it  does  not  teach  Transuhstantiation,  and,  what 
they  there  say,  or  w^hat  was  said  by  their  great  theological 
representatives  at  the  Diet,  is  most  important  as  showing  how 
the  Confession  w^as  there  understood,  and,  of  course,  how  it  is 
to  be  understood  now.  An  examination  of  their  official  Con- 
futation at  once  silences  the  pitiful  old  libel  that  the  Roman 
Catholics  accepted  the  Tenth  Article  icithout  reservation.  The 
latest  repeater  of  this  ignorant,  if  not  malicious,  assertion,  is 
Rev.  Wm.  Good,  by  whom  it  has  been  the  great  misfortune 
of  the  Low  Church  Party  in  England  to  seem  to  be  repre- 
sented. He  quotes,  at  second  hand  we  judge,  (from  the  pages 
of  one  of  the  bitterest  zealots  against  the  Lutheran  Church,) 
four  w^ords,  drawn  from  the  Papal  Confutation,  w4iich  would 
lead  his  readers  to  suppose  that  the  Papists  simply  assented 
to  the  Tenth  Article  as  being  sound,  and  hence  he  draws  the 
inference  that  the  Article  teaches  the  Romish  view.  All  this 
is  built  on  an  isolation  of  four  words  out  of  more  than  a  hun- 
dred. The  Romish  Confutation,  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  this 
point,  literally  translated,  runs  thus: 

"The  Tenth  Article  in  words  oflends  nothing,  wlien  they 
confess  that  in  the  Eucharist,  after  consecration  legitimately 
made,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  substantially  and  ti-uly 
present,  provided  that  {si  modo)  they  believe,  that  under  each 
species,  the  entire  Christ  is  present,  so  that  by  concomitance,  the 
blood  of  Christ  is  no  less  under  the  species  of  bread  than  it  is 
under  the  species  of  wine,  and  so  of  the  other.     Otherwise  in 


TRANSUBSTANTIA  TION  REJECTED.  625 

the  Eucharist,  the  body  of  Christ  would  be  bloodless,  contrary 
to  St.  Paul,  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieth  no 
more.     Rom.  vi. 

*'  One  thing  is  to  be  added  as  an  Article  exceedingly  necessary 
{yalide  necessarium)  to  this  Confession,  that  they  shall  believe 
the  Church  (rather  than  some  who  falsely  teach  otherwise), 
that  by  the  omnipotent  Word  of  God,  in  the  consecration  of 
the  Eucharist,  the  substance  of  the  bread  is  changed  into  the  body 
of  Christ:' 

Here  it  is  clear,  first,  that  so  far  as  the  Romanists  give  their 
approval  at  all  to  the  Tenth  Article,  it  is  of  the  most  reserved 
kind.  First,  they  speak  of  the  "  words  "  only,  as  not  oftensive 
on  the  one  point  that  there  is  a  true  presence.  It  is  the  only 
case  in  which  they  qualify  their  approval  by  terms  which  imply 
a  suspicion  that  "  the  words  "  may  not  fairly  convey  what  is 
meant.  Hoffmeister,  indeed, expresses  this  insinuation, "  unless, 
indeed,  they  wish  to  impose  upon  us  by  a  likeness  of  words." 

Second,  They  declare  that  even  these  words  are  not  offen- 
sive, solely,  if  they  be  so  interpreted  as  to  include  the  idea  of 
concomitance,  which  it  is  not  pretended  they  express ;  they 
carefully  note  that  the  Article  does  not  teach  Transubstantiation^ 
in  this  acknowledging  that  the  doctrine  is  not  implied,  as  has 
been  pretended,  in  the  word  "  species."  In  fact,  as  the  Confes- 
sion does  not  teach  concomitance,  but  by  implication  rejects  it, 
the  Romish  Confutation  does  not  really  endorse  heartily  a 
single  word  of  it. 

The  discussion  of  the  Tenth  Article  by  John  Cochlseus,  sheds 
no  less  light  on  the  understanding  of  the  Article  by  the  Roman- 
ists at  the  time.  This  bitter  enemy  of  the  Reformation,  who 
was  one  of  those  who  drew  up  the  Confutation,  says :  "  Though 
that  Article  be  brief,  there  are  many  things  of  ichich  we  complain 
as  wanting  in  it  [multa  tamen  in  eo  desideramur).  Luther  frivo- 
lously denying  Transubstantiation,  though  in  w^ords  he  dis- 
putes at  large  against  Zwingli  and  (Ecolampadius,  yet  in  the 
thing  itself^  he  thinks  with  them,  and  is  in  collusion  with  them 
{cum  eis  colludit).  And  Luther's  followers  have  reached  such 
a  pitch  of  madness,  that  they  refuse  longer  to  adore  the  Eucharist^ 
because  Luther  has  impiously  taught  that  it  is  safer  not  to 
40 


626  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

adore,  and  has  openly  denied  the  doctrine  of  concomitance.  And 
now  they  have  proceeded  in  the  fury  of  their  impiety  to  such 
a  degree  as  to  deny  that  the  body  of  Christ  remains  in  the 
consecrated  Host,  except  in  the  use  at  the  altar  {extra  altaris 
usian).  Hence  they  falsely  and  impiously  call  us  idolaters, 
because  we  retain  the  body  of  the  Lord  in  the  consecrated 
Host  in  the  Tabernacles  (Cibariis)  for  infirm  Communicants,  or 
when  we  bear  it  (the  body)  about  in  monstrances  and  proces- 
sions." He  quotes  Melanchthon's  words  in  the  Apology,  "  with 
those  things  which  are  seen,  the  bread  and  wine,"  as  flagrantly 
contradictory  of  Transubstantiation  {turpiter  contradicit  sibi 
ipsi)."^ 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  noticing  that,  widely  as  Eoman- 
ism,  with  its  Transubstantiation,  and  Rationalism,  with  its 
Symbol,  ditter  in  their  results,  they  run  into  their  error  by  the 
same  fallacious  principle  of  interpretation  —  each  applying  it 
with  the  same  arbitrariness,  but  to  different  objects.  The 
Romanist  wishes  to  do  away  with  the  Scripture  testimony 
in  regard  to  the  bread  and  wine ;   and,  although  they  bear 

*0n  the  History  and  Literature  of  the  Papal  Confutation,  which  has  great 
value  in  the  interpretation  and  defence  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  see  the  works 
following : 

Brill:  Aufd.  evangel.  Augapfel,  1629.  4to.  (the  German  translation  of  the  work 
of  Fabricius  Leodius  mentioned  below).  —  Danz  :  Augsburg  Confess.,  Jena,  1829. 
12mo.  ^  6.  — Chytr^us.  Hist.  Aug.  Conf.,  119.  (Confutation,  173,  seq.)  Ger. 
Edit.,  1577,  p.  191.  — CcELESTiNUs  1.  192  seq.  Confutation  III. —  Cyprian.  87 
geq.  —  Feuerlin  :  Biblioth  Symbol.  —  Fickenscher:  Gesch.  d.  Reichst.  z.  Augs- 
burg, 1830,  III.  324.  — Foerstemann:  Urkundenbuch,  2  vols.  8vo.  Halle,  1836, 
II.  133-176. —Francke:  Lib.  Symb.  Eccl.  Luth.  Lips.  1847.  Proleg.  12mo. 
xxx.-xxxiii.  (Confutation,  Append.  43-69.)  — Gabler  :  Nst.  Theol.  Jour.,  1801, 
443  seq.— Hase:  Lib.  Symb.  Eccles.  Evangel.  Lips.  1827,  2  vols.  12mo.  Proleg. 
Ixxiv.-lxxvi.  The  Confutation,  Ixxvi.-cxiv.  — Hoffman  :  Comment,  in  A.  C. 
Tubing.,  1727.  4to.  205-213.  — Kollner:  Symb!  d.  Luther.  Kirche.  Hamb.  1837, 
p.  397-416. —MUller,  C.  C:  Formula  Confutationis  A.  C.  Lat.  German.  Lips., 
1808,  8vo.  — MUller,  J.  J.:  Hist.  v.  Protest,  u.  A.  C.  Jena,  1705,  4to.  p.  653.— 
Pfaff:  Lib.  SymboL  Eccl.  Luth. —Planck  :  Protest.  Lehrbeg.  III.  I.  62  seq. — 
Rotermund  :  Gesch.  d.  z.  Augsb.  iibergeb.  Glaubensbek.  Hannov.  1829,  8vo. 
109-116. —Salic:  I.  224  seq.  378  seq.  — Seckendorf  :  Hist.  Luth.  II.  171.— 
Semler  :  Apparat.  in  L.  S.  p.  73.  — Spieker,  C.  G.:  Conf.  Fidei.  Confutatio.,  etc. 
Berlin,  1830.  8vo.  149-204.  — Walchii,  J.  G.:  Introd.  in  L.  S.  416.  Misoel- 
lan.  Sacra.     205. —Weber:  Krit.  Gesch.     II.  Vorred.,  and  p.  439. 


ROMANISM  AND   RATIONALIS^M,  627 

their  name  before  the  Lord's  Supper,  during  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  after  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  insists  that  there  is  neither 
bread  nor  wine  there,  but  only  their  accidents.  While  our 
Lord  says  :  "  This  is  my  body,"  the  Romanist  in  effect  makes 
it :  This  seeming  bread  is  no  longer  bread,  but  has  become,  has 
been  transubstantiated  into,  My  body.  He  deserts  the  letter 
and  reaches  Transubstantiation.  The  Rationalist  wishes  to 
retain  the  bread  and  wine,  and  therefore  holds  that  what  the 
Scripture  calls  bread  and  wine,  is  bread  and  wine;  but  he 
wishes  to  do  away  with  the  Scripture  testimony  in  Romanism an.i 
regard  to  the  body  and  blood  ;  and  although  the  ^';:^^ 
Scripture  says,  that  of  that  which  the  Saviour  tells  ''ere  the  same, 
them  to  Take,  eat,  He  declares  most  explicitly.  This  is  My 
body ;  and  of  that  which  He  tells  them  to  drink.  He  says, 
This  is  My  blood  —  though  it  says  that  the  bread  is  the  com- 
munion of  His  body  and  the  cup  the  communion  of  His  blood 
—  though  it  declares  that  the  guilt  of  the  heedless  communi- 
cant is  that  he  does  not  "  discern  the  Lord's  body,"  and  that 
he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily  is  guilty  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ ;  in  the  face  of  all  this  he  insists  that 
there  is  in  the  Lord's  Supper  only  the  shadow,  image,  or  sign 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  not  the  true  body  and  true 
blood.  With  what  face  can  a  Rationalist  meet  a  Romanist, 
or  a  Romanist  meet  a  Rationalist?  ^o  wonder  that  the 
Rationalist,  after  all,  is  less  violent  against  Romanism  than 
against  the  pure  doctrine  of  our  Church.  There  is  the  secret 
affinity  of  error  between  them;  and  Romanism  does  not  so 
hate  Rationalism,  Rationalism  does  not  so  hate  Romanism,  as 
both  hate  unswerving  fidelity  to  the  Word  of  God.  That  the 
Romish  and  rationalizing  modes  of  interpretation  are  nearer 
to  each  other  than  either  is  to  the  Lutheran,  is  admitted  by 
both  Rationalists  and  Romanists.  The  rationalizing  interpre- 
ters make  it  one  of  the  common -places  of  objection  to  the 
Lutheran  view  that  it  has  less  in  a  literal  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture  to  sustain  it  than  the  Romish  view  has :  that  is,  the 
Romish  view  is  less  decisively  opposed  than  the  Lutheran  is 
to  rationalistic  modes  of  literal  interpretation. 

On  the  Romish  side,  Bellarmine  and  others  take  the  ground 


628  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

that  right  principles  of  interpretation  lead  either  to  Romanietic 
or  Calvinistic  views  of  the  Supper.  As  hoth  these  have  the 
common  ground  that  the  proposition  of  the  Supper  is  :  ''  This 
hread  is  Christ's  body,"  and  as  both  argue  that  real  bread  can- 
not be  real  body,  the  one  escapes  the  dithculty  by  maintaining 
that  there  is  no  real  bread  in  the  Supper,  the  other  that  there 
is  no  real  body  there ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  Romanist, 
Zwiuglian,  and  Calvinist  agree  in  an  exegetical  principle,  and 
simply  vary  in  the  application  of  it. 

A  single  citation  from  two  great  authorities,  the  first  Roman 
Catholic,  the  second  Calvinistic,  will  demonstrate  this.  Bel- 
LARMINE,  in  his  Discussion  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
eh.  xix.,  says,  ''These  words:  'This  is  My  body,'  necessarily 
lead  to  the  inference  either  that  there  is  a  true  mutation  of  the 
bread.,  as  the  Catholics  will  have  it,  or  a  metaphorical  mutation^ 
as  the  Calvinists  will  have  it ;  but  in  no  way  admit  of  the 
Lutheran  view." 

Ursinus,  in  his  Explanation  of  the  Catechism,  II.,  Q.  78  : 
"  As  it  is  not  true  that  the  Papists  retain  the  verbally  literal, 
so  it  is  much  less  true  {multo  minus  verum)  that  those  (Lutherans) 
retain  the  letter  and  true  sense  of  the  words."  "  The  letter  is : 
'  This,  that  is,  this  bread,  is  My  body  ; '  the  meaning  is,  '  That 
visible,  broken,  and  distributed  bread  is  My  true  and  essential 
body.'  But  as  this  cannot  be  by  essential  conversion,  but 
mystically  or  by  sacramental  metonomy,  because  the  words, 
according  to  the  verbally  literal,  have  a  sense  repugnant  to 
the  verity  of  the  Christian  faith,  therefore  we  say,  that  in  the 
words  of  Christ  a  fitting  [conveniens)  meaning  is  to  be  taught." 
Do.  p.  541.  This,  then,  is  the  genesis  of  the  two  views :  Body 
cannot  be  bread,  but  as  there  is  body  there  is  no  bread :  bread 
cannot  be  body,  but  as  there  is  bread  there  is  no  body. 

With  such  a  principle,  only  a  third  possibility  remains :  it  is 
to  apply  it  rigidly  and  consistently  to  every  part  of  the  Insti- 
tution, to  take  away  the  bread  with  the  Romanist,  and  the 
body  with  the  Rationalist,  and  then  we  have  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per of  the  Quaker  and  other  mystics,  with  neither  supernatural 
reality  nor  outward  element — all  idea,  all  spirit.  The  extrava- 
gance of  the  Romish  materializing  of  the  presence  of  Cbrist's 


CONCESSIONS   OF  UN-LUTHERAN  WRITERS.     629 

body,  and  of  the  rationalistic  exaggeration,  wliioh  leaves  only 
natural  matter,  run  into  tlie  nihilism  of  the  mystic.  Yon  can- 
not annihilate  either  element  in  the  Lord's  Supper  without 
annihilating  both. 

In  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  nevertheless,  as  in 
almost  all  of  her  corruptions,  the  Church  of  Rome  has  not  so 
much  absolutely  removed  the  foundation,  as  hidden  it  by  the 
wood,  hay,  and  stubble  of  human  device.  Truth  can  some- 
times be  reached  by  running  the  corruptions  of  it  back  to  the 
trunk  on  which  they  were  grafted.  Such  an  error  as  that  of 
Transubstantiation  could  never  have  been  grafted  on  an  origi- 
nal faith  like  that  of  Zwingli  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  tendency  of  the  Zwinglian  view,  if  it  be  corrupted,  is  to 
laxer,  not  to  higher,  views  of  the  sacramental  mystery.  Such 
an  error  as  the  doctrine  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  never  could  have  been  grafted  on  a  faith  origi- 
nally Socinian.  It  is  a  corruption  which  presupposes  as  a  truth, 
to  be  corrupted  in  its  inference,  the  divinity  and  sinlessness  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  just  as  the  comparatively  modern 
corruption  of  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  is  a  proof  that  faith  in 
the  Godhead  of  Jesus  Christ  was  part  of  the  primitive  faith,  so 
does  the  comparatively  modern  corruption  of  Transubstantia- 
tion prove  that  faith  in  the  objective  supernatural  presence  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  was  part  of  the  primitive  faith. 
A  rotten  apple  always  presupposes  a  sound  apple.  However 
corrupt  a  fig  may  be,  we  know  that  it  grew  on  a  fig-tree,  and 
not  on  a  thistle. 

Our  fourth  proposition  in  the  analytic  exhibition  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is : 

That  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  truly  iv.  Ti.eSacra- 
present  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  under  the  species  of  X";:;f,:7,"; 
bread  and  wine,  are  commumcated.'^  and    Biood    of 

We  have  virtually  proved  this  proposition  in  '^^^['I'^Z 
proving  the  three  which  preceded  it.  ^N'everthe-  istic views-con- 
less,  in  the  afi^luence  of  Scripture  evidence  sustain-  Lutheran  writ- 
ins:  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  we  can  well  aftbrd  "^ 

*  German,  ausgetheilt:  Lat.,  distribuantur.  In  the  Apologj;  Lai.,  exhibean- 
tur ;  German,  dargereicht. 


630  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

to  give  this  thesis  a  distinct  vindication.  We  affirm,  then, 
that  this  fourth  proposition  is  explicitly  taught  in  1  Cor.  x.  16  : 
'-'■  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion 
[xoivwv/^/.]  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  w^e  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  [xoivw-Za]  of  the  body  of  Christ?" 
This  passage,  in  its  express  terms  and  in  its  connection,  is 
what  Luther  calls  it  —  a  thunderbolt  upon  the  heads  of  error- 
ists  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  figment  of  Transub- 
stantiation  is  overthrown  by  it,  for  it  expressly  mentions  bread, 
and  that  which  communicates  cannot  be  identical  with  that 
w^hich  is  communicated  by  it.  St.  Paul  expressly  mentions 
the  two  elements ;  the  bread,  which  is  the  earthly  ;  the  body 
of  our  Lord,  w^hich  is  the  heavenly ;  the  sacramental  union, 
and  the  impartation  of  the  heavenly  in,  with,  and  under  the 
earthly.  The  passage  equally  overthrows  all  the  Rationalistic 
corruptions  of  the  doctrine.  Zwingli  says :  The  bread  is  the 
sign  of  the  body  ;  Paul  says :  The  bread  is  the  communion  of 
the  body  ;  Zwingli  says :  The  wine  is  the  sign  of  the  blood ; 
Paul  says :  The  cup  is  the  communion  of  the  blood.  On 
Zwingli 's  theory,  any  and  all  bread  is,  as  such,  the  sign  of 
Christ's  body ;  on  Paul's  theory,  it  is  the  bread  which  we  break, 
that  is,  the  sacramental  bread  only,  which  is  the  communion 
of  Christ's  body  ;  on  Zwingli's  theory,  any  w^ine  and  all  wine 
is,  as  such,  the  sign  of  Christ's  blood  ;  on  Paul's  theory,  only 
the  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  in  the  Supper,  is  the  com- 
munion of  Christ's  blood  ;  on  Zwingli's  theory,  the  relation  of 
the  bread  and  body  is  that  of  symbol  and  of  reality  ;  on  Paul's 
theory,  it  is  the  relation  of  communicating  medium  and  of  the 
thing  communicated  ;  on  Zwingli's  theory,  we  receive  the  cup 
to  be  reminded  of  the  blood  ;  on  Paul's  theory,  we  receive  the 
cup  to  receive  the  blood.  On  Zwingli's  theory,  the  argument 
of  the  Apostle  is  sophistical  and  pointless  in  the  last  degree, 
for  as  all  bread  is  equally  an  emblem  of  Christ's  body  as  food 
for  the  soul,  and  all  wine  equally  an  emblem  of  Christ's  blood 
as  the  refreshing  of  the  soul,  any  and  every  eating  of  bread, 
and  any  and  Gvery  drinking  of  wine,  would  be  the  communion 
of  His  body  and  blood  ;  therefore,  to  eat  bread  and  to  drink 
wine  at  the  table  of  Demons,  would  be,  on  Zwingli's  theory 


CONCESSIONS   OF  UN-LUTHERAN  WRITERS.     631 

of  Bymbol,  to  have  communion  with  Christ's  body  and  blood; 
for  bread  is  a  symbol  of  nourishment,  wine  a  symbol  of  refresh- 
ing, without  reference  to  the  time  or  place  of  receiving  them  ; 
their  whole  character  as  symbols  depends  on  what  bread  is,  as 
bread  —  on  what  wine  is,  as  wine;  and  the  Corinthian  could 
make  the  table  of  Demons  a  Lord's  Supper  by  the  simple  men- 
tal act  of  thinking  of  the  bread  and  wine  as  symbols  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood.  A  vine,  as  a  symbol  of  Christ,  is  equally  a 
symbol,  whether  it  grows  on  the  land  of  devil-worshippers  or 
of  Christians  ;  bread,  as  a  symbol  of  Christ's  body,  is  equally  a 
symbol,  whether  baked  by  Atheist,  Jew,  or  Pagan  ;  whether 
eaten  at  the  table  of  Demons  or  at  the  table  of  the  Lord. 
The  logic  of  Zwingli's  position  is,  then,  exactly  the  opposite  of 
that  of  the  Apostle,  and  would  make  his  conclusion  in  the  last 
degree  absurd. 

Equally  do  the  words  overthrow  the  Calvinistic  theory. 
Calvin's  theory  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  communicates  the  body 
of  Christ ;  Paul's  is,  that  the  bread  communicates  it;  he  men- 
tions but  two  elements,  bread  and  body.  Calvin  says,  the  Holy 
Spirit  communicates  the  blood  of  Christ ;  Paul  says,  that  the 
cup  communicates  it,  two  elements  only  again,  cup  and  blood, 
not  three:  cup.  Holy  Spirit,  and  blood.  Calvin  makes  faith 
the  communicating  medium ;  Paul  says,  the  bread  we  break, 
the  cup  we  bless,  is  the  communicating  medium.  Calvin  makes 
the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  one  which  is 
confined  to  worthy  recipients,  true  believers,  while  to  all  others 
there  is  but  *the  communication  of  bread  and  wine ;  Paul  is 
speaking  of  what  the  communion  also  is  to  some  who  "  eat 
and  drink  unworthily,"  "  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body," 
"  eating  and  drinking  damnation  to  themselves,"  "  guilty  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,"  and  yet  he  affirms  that  to 
them  the  bread  communicates  the  body,  the  cup,  the  blood  of 
Christ.  Calvin's  communion  is  one  which  can  take  place  any- 
where and  always,  inasmuch  as  the  Holy  Spirit  is  always  pres- 
ent, and  faith  can  always  be  exercised ;  Paul's  is  expressly 
limited  to  that  with  which  the  bread  and  cup  are  connected. 
Calvin's  is  a  communion  of  the  virtue  and  efficacy  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ ;  Paul's  is  a  communion  of  the  body  and 


632  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

blood  themselves.  Calvin's  is  the  communion  of  an  absent 
body  and  blood ;  Pauls  the  communion  of  a  present  body  and 
blood,  so  present  that  bread,  broken  and  given,  imparts  the 
one,  and  the  cup,  blessed  and  taken,  imparts  the  other.  Cal- 
vin talks  of  a  faith  by  which  we  spiritually  eat  an  absent 
body,  Paul  of  elements  by  which  we  sacrarnentally  eat  a  pres- 
ent body. 

As  by  Zwingli's  theory,  so  by  Calvin's  also,  the  argument  of 
the  Apostle  here  is  emptied  of  all  force.  For  the  argument 
of  the  Apostle  is  addressed  to  those  who  eat  and  drink  unwor- 
thily, that  is  to  those  who  had  not  faith.  The  very  necessity 
of  the  argument  arises  from  the  presupposition  of  a  want  of 
true  faith  in  the  Lord,  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  it  was 
addressed.  But  on  the  Calvinistic  theory  the  communion  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  participation  in  them,  are 
confined  to  those  who  have  faith.  These  Corinthians,  there- 
fore, had  St.  Paul  taught  them  a  theory  like  that  of  Calvin, 
might  have  replied:  "Oh,  no  I  as  we  are  without  true  faith, 
and  are  receiving  unworthily,  we  receive  nothing  but  bread 
and  wine,  but  as  bread  and  w^ine  were  not  the  sacrifices  which 
Christ  ofiered  to  God,  we  do  not  come  into  fellowship  with 
God's  altar  by  partaking  of  them  —  therefore  we  are  not  guilty 
of  what  you  charge  on  us,  to  wit,  the  inconsistency  of  eating 
and  drinking  at  the  same  time,  of  the  sacrifices  ofiered  on 
God's  altar,  and  of  the  sacrifices  ofiered  on  the  altar  of  De- 
mons." The  Calvinistic  theory  makes  the  argument  of  the 
Apostle  an  absurdity. 

Two  parallels  in  the  connection  help  to  bring  out  very  viv- 
idly the  Apostle's  idea.  One  is  the  parallel  with  Israel :  v.  18. 
•'  Behold  Israel  after  the  flesh :  are  not  they  which  eat  of  the 
sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar?  "  The  point  seems  to  be  most 
clearly  this :  that  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
Supper  is  as  real  as  the  eating  of  the  animal  sacrifices  in  the 
Jewish  Church.  Christ's  body  is  the  true  sacrifice  which  takes 
once  for  all  the  place  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  and  the  sacra- 
mental communion,  in  which  that  body  is  the  sustenance,  in 
ever-renewing  application  of  the  one  only  sacrifice,  takes  the 
place  of  the  Jewish  eating  of  the  sacrifice.     The  other  parallel 


CONCESSIONS   OF  UN-LUTHERAN  WRITERS.     6'33 

is  with  the  eating  the  sacrifices  and  drinking  of  the  cup  offered 
to  idols,  V.  21.  The  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  is  represented  as  no  less  real  in  its  nature  and  positive 
in  its  results  than  the  other  communication  of  the  sacrificial 
flesh  and  cup. 

The  parallel  may  be  ofi:ered  thus  to  the  eye,  as  regards  the 
Jews  and  the  Christians. 

Israel  after  the  flesh,  or  Israel  after  the  spirit,  or 

the  Jews,  Christians, 

have  the  typical  sacrifice  have  the  real  sacrifice 

of  the  body  of  the  body 

and  blood  and  blood 

of  animals,  of  Christ, 

on  the  typical  altar,  on  the  true  altar, 

and  eat  and  eat 

of  the  typical  sacrifice  of  the  true  sacrifice 

of  animal  body  and  blood  of  Christ's  body  and  blood 

at  the  Jewish  Festival,  at  the  Christian  festival, 

the  sacrificial  supper,  the  Lord's  Supper, 

and  thus  partake  and  thus  partake 

of  the  typical  altar.  of  the  true  altar. 

Here  the  parallel  is  between  type  and  truth — in  the  parallel 
between  Pagans  and  Christians  it  is  between  falsehood  and 
truth. 

In  a  word,  the  whole  argument  involves  a  parallel  between 
three  things :  ' 

I.  The  Sacrificial  meal  of  the  Jews. 
II.  The  Sacrificial  meal  of  the  Pagans. 

III.  The  Sacrificial  meal  of  the  Christians,  or  Lord's  Supper. 

The  common  idea  that  underlies  the  triple  parallel  is,  that  in 
each  of  these  meals  there  is  a  true  communion,  communication, 
or  impartation  of  the  thing  sacrificed,  whereby  the  receiver  is 
brought  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Altar,  on  which  it  was  sac- 
rificed, and  thus  into  fellowship  with  the  being  to  whom  it  was 
sacrificed  —  the  Pagan  with  the  Demons,  the  Jew  with  God  as 
hidden  in  type,  the  Christian  with  God  unveiled,  and  incarnate 
in  Christ. 


634  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

The  parallel  in  the  thought  in  lleb.  xiii.  10-12  is  also  well 
worthy  of  notice :  "  "We  have  an  altar.,  whereof  they  have  no 
right  to  eat.,  which  serve  the  tabernacle.  For  the  bodies  of 
those  beasts,  whose  hlood  is  brought  into  the  sanctuary  by  the 
High  Priest  for  sin,  are  burnt  without  the  camp.  Wherefore, 
Jesus,  also,  that  He  might  sanctify  the  people  with  His  own 
blood,  suffered  without  the  gate."  Here  is  altar  over  against 
altar,  body  over  against  body,  blood  over  against  blood,  sacri- 
fice over  against  sacrifice,  eating  over  against  eating.  We 
have  the  true  altar  over  against  the  typifying  altar,  the  true 
body,  blood,  and  sacrifice  of  Christ  over  against  the  typifying 
body,  blood,  and  sacrifice  of  beasts,  the  true  sacramental  and 
communicating  eating  over  against  the  typifying  eating,  which 
foreshadowed,  but  could  not  consummate  a  communion. 

If  language  can  express  a  thought  unmistakably,  the  words 
of  Paul  (1  Cor.  x.)  imply  that,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  there  is 
a  supernatural  reality,  a  relation  between  the  bread  and  the 
body  of  Christ,  which  makes  the  one  the  medium  of  the  recep- 
tion of  the  other ;  that  our  atoning  sacrifice,  after  a  different 
manner,  but  a  manner  not  less  real  than  that  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Jew  and  Pagan,  is  communicated  to  us  in  the  Holy  Supper, 
as  their  sacrifices  were  given  in  their  feasts.  The  Lord's  Sup- 
per, indeed,  may  be  regarded  as  a  summing  up  of  the  whole 
fundamental  idea  of  Old  Testament  sacrifice,  a  covenant  con- 
summated by  sacrifice,  and  entered  into  by  the  covenanting 
parties,  receiving,  each  after  the  mode  appropriate  to  him,  that 
which  is  sacrificed  ;  the  Almighty  Father  accepting  His  Son, 
as  the  Victim  offered  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  the 
world  accepting  in  the  Holy  Supper  the  precious  body  and 
blood  which  apply  in  perpetual  renewal,  through  all  genera- 
tions, the  merits  of  the  oblation  made,  once  for  all,  upon  the 
Cross. 

The  interpretation  of  these  passages  implied  by  our  Church 
in  her  Confession  is  sustained  by  the  universal  usage  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  by  the  judgment  of  the  greatest  of  the 
fathers,  Greek  and  Latin,  by  the  opinion  of  the  most  eminent 
dogmaticians  and  expositors,  ancient  and  modern,  and  even  by 
the  concessions  of  interpreters  who  reject  the  Lutheran  fiiith. 


CONCESSIONS   OF   UN-LUTHERAN  WRITERS.     635 

1.  The  whole  Church  from  the  earliest  period  ha8  called,  and 
now  calls,  the  Lord's  Supper  the  Communion.  That  Supper 
alone  has  this  name.  But  what  solution  of  the  sole  applica- 
tion of  this  name  can  he  given  except  that  in  it  the  hody  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  communicated  and  received  as  they  are  no- 
where else.  The  universal  Christian  consciousness  and  lan- 
guage attest  the  supernatural  reality  of  the  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

2.  The  drift  oi  initristic  interpretation  may  be  gathered  from 
the  extracts  which  follow  : 

Ignatius  (Ordained  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  ab.  A.  D.  43,  d. 
107):  "  The  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 
There  is  one  cup  for  the  uniting  (^vwjjv)  of  His  blood." 

Justin  Martyr  (d.  165):  "The  food  over  which  the  Eu- 
charistic  prayer  has  been  made  is  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the 
incarnate  Jesus." 

Iren^us  (d.  202) :  "  When  the  mingled  cup  and  the  broken 
bread  receive  the  words  of  God,  it  becomes  the  Eucharist  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 

Ambrose  (d.  307):  "  We  receiving  of  one  bread  and  of  one 
cup,  are  receivers  and  partakers  of  the  body  of  the  Lord." 

Chrysostom  (d.  407) :  "  Yery  persuasively  and  fearfully  He 
speaks :  For  what  He  says  is  this.  That  very  thing  which  is 
in  this  cup  is  that  which  flowed  from  His  side,  and  of  that  we 
are  partakers.  Not  only  hath  He  poured  it  out,  but  He  hath 
imparted  of  it  to  us  all.  What  is  more  fearful  than  this? 
Yet,  what  more  kindly  afl:ectioned  ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  (xo»vwvic()  of  the  body  of  Christ  ? 
Why  does  He  not  say  Participation  (fxsTox^j')?  Because  He 
wished  to  signify  something  more  (than  participation),  and  to 
indicate  the  greatness  of  the  joining  together."  Theophylact* 
and  John,  of  Damascus,  adopt  and  repeat  these  words  of 
Chrysostom. 

Jerome  (d.  420) :  "  Is  it  not  the  Communion  of  the  blood  of 

■5^  Theophylact  (1078) :  "  Non  dixit  participatio,  sed  communicatio  ut  aliquid 
excellentius  indicet  puta  summam  unionem.  Quid  autem  dicit  liujusmodi  est, 
Jioc  quod  in  calice  eat,  illud  est  quod  effluxit  de  latere  Christi,  et  ex  eo  accipientes 
communicamus,  id  est  unimur  Christo." 


636  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

Christ?     As  the  Saviour  Himself  saith :  He  who  eateth  My 
flesh  and  driiiketh  My  hlood,  ahideth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him." 

Theodoret  (d.  456) :  "  Enjoying  the  sacred  mysteries,  are  we 
not  partakers  with  Him,  the  Master? " 

John  of  Damascus  (d.  750) :  "  As  the  body  is  united  with 
the  Logos,  so  also  we  are  united  with  Him  by  this  bread." 
"  The  Lord's  Supper  is  called,  and  is,  in  very  deed,  a  commu- 
nion (xoivwv/r/),  because  through  it  we  commune  (xoivwvsrv)  with 
Christ  and  become  partakers  of  His  flesh."  Orthod.  Fidei,  lib. 
IV.  xiv. 

3.  The  Reformers  of  the  Xon-Lutheran  tendency  make  im- 
portant concessions. 

Calvin  :  "  The  thing  itself  is  also  present,  nor  does  the  soul 
less  receive  (percipiat)  the  communion  of  the  blood,  than  we 
drink  the  wine  with  the  mouth."  "  The  wine  is  no  longer  a 
common  drink,  but  dedicated  to  the  spiritual  nourishment  of 
the  soul,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  token  (tessera)  of  the  blood  of 
Christ." 

Peter  Martyr  :  "  Ye  are  of  the  body  of  Christ,  His  mem- 
bers, participants  (participes)  of  His  body  and  blood."  "Chris- 
tians have  association  and  conjunction  with  one  another,  which 
hath  its  seat  in  this  (in  eo  sita  est),  that  they  are  participants 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 

But  no  witness  to  the  cogency  of  the  passage  is  perhaps  so 
striking  as  that  of  Zwixgli,  who,  in  the  effort  to  explain  away 
a  text  so  fatal  to  his  theory,  falls  upon  this  violent  and  extra- 
ordinary interpretation:  "  What,  I  ask,  is  the  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  Except  our  own  selves  (quam  nos  ipsi)  ?  He 
gives  the  name  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  those  who  trust  in 
His  blood.  In  this  passage  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  are  those  who  exult  that  they  have  obtained  liberty  in 
Christ's  blood.     All  we  who  are  participants  of  one  bread  and 

one    cup,  ARE    THE    BLOOD    OF    ChRIST    AND    THE    BODY    OF    ChRIST 

We  have  treated  this  point  somewhat  more  verbosely,  but  we 
have  done  it  because  this  passage,  either  not  understood,  or 
BADLY  interpreted,  cvcn  by  many  learned  men,  has  given  to 
the  simple,  occasion  of  believing  tliat  in  the  bread  the  body  of 
Christ  is  eaten,  and  in  the  wine  His  blood  is  drunk."     Who 


CONCESSIONS   OF   UN-LUTHERAN  WRITERS.     637 

does  not  feel  that  Zvvingli  would  have  weakened  his  cause  less 
by  saying  honestly,  ''I  cannot  harmonize  this  text  with  my 
view,"  than  he  has  by  an  interpretation  so  forced  as  to  look 
like  evidence  of  purpose  to  make,  in  any  way,  God's  words 
square  with  a  certain  assumption  ? 

4.  A  few  distinguished  names  among  English  and  American 
writers  may  be  quoted.  On  these  words,  rooL,  the  great  mas- 
ter among  the  old  Puritan  commentators,  says :  "  The  cup 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ? 
that  is,  it  is  an  action  whereby  and  wherein  Christ  communi- 
cates Himself  and  His  grace  to  us."  "  The  bread  is  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ ;  an  action  wherein  Christians 
have  a  fellowship  and  communion  with  Christ."  It  will  be 
noticed  that,  in  the  face  of  the  text,  Pool  substitutes  "  Christ  " 
for  "-  body  of  Christ,"  and  again  for  "•  blood  of  Christ."  Sub- 
stitute the  very  term  of  the  sacred  Word  for  his  substitute, 
and  Pool  is  forced  to  say  of  the  Lord's  Supper:  "It  is  an 
action  whereby  and  wherein  Christ  communicates  His  blood 
to  us,"  "  an  action  whereby  Christians  have  a  fellowship  and 
communion  with  the  body  of  Christ,"  and  this  is,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  the  very  doctrine  of  our  Church. 

Bishop  Wilson's  paraphrase  is:  "  The  bread  which  we  break, 
after  consecration,  is  it  not  that  by  which  we  have  communion 
with  Christ,  our  Head?  " 

HussEY  explains  the  "  communion  "  "  by  spiritually  partak- 
ing of  the  blood  and  body  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist." 

The  OLDER  TRANSLATORS  in  English  bring  out  the  true  sense 
very  clearly :  "  Is  not  the  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  par- 
taking of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  "  "  Is  not  the  bread,  which  we 
break,  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  "  Such  is  the  render- 
ing of  the  earliest  and  latest  Tyndale,  of  Coverdale,  of  Cran- 
mer,  and  of  the  Bishops.  The  first  English  translation,  and 
for  more  than  half  a  century  the  only  one,  which  used  the 
word  "communion"  was  the  Genevan,  which  was  made  at 
Geneva  by  English  religious  fugitives  who  were  strong  Calvin- 
ists,  and  who  here  followed  Beza,  evidently  for  doctrinal  reasons, 
as  the  marginal  note  shows.  From  the  Genevan  (1557)  it  went 
into  the  Authorized  Version  (1611),  which  obscures  the  Apos- 


638  COKSERVATIVE   REFORMATION: 

tie's  reasoning  by  rendering  koinonia,  in  the  sixteenth  verse, 
communion,  and  koinonos,  in  the  eighteenth  verse,  "par- 
takers "  and  "  fellowship." 

Hammond  translates  the  word  xoivwv.a  "  communication,"  and 
paraphrases  it :  "  The  Christian  feast  of  bread  and  wine  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  .  .  the  making  us  partakers  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,"  and  refers  to  his  note  on  Acts  ii.  42,  in 
which  he  says :  "  The  word  koinonia  is  to  be  rendered,  not 
communion^  but  communication^  by  that,  meaning  distribution 
.  .  or  participation,  by  which  any  are  made  partakers  of  some 
gift.  In  this  notion  is  the  word  generally  used  in  Scripture 
for  .  .  some  kind  of  distributing  or  dispensing  to  others.  .  . 
So  in  1  Cor.  x.  16,  the  participating  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ." 

Bishop  Hall  (d.  1656) :  "  That  sacred  cup  .  .  is  it  not  that 
wherein  we  have  a  joint  communion  with  Christ,  in  par- 
taking of  His  blood?  The  bread  .  .  is  it  not  that  wherein  we 
.  .  have  communion  with  Christ,  in  a  joint  receiving  of  His 
body?" 

Archbishop  Sharp:  "St.  Paul  here  plainly  teaches  us  that 
these  sacred  signs  make  those  who  use  them  to  have  com.mu- 
nion  with  Christ  crucified." 

The  Westminster  Assembly's  Annotations  represent  the 
communion  as  "  a  sign  or  pledge  of  the  spiritual  communion 
which  we  have  together,  who  by  faith  participate  in  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ." 

Matthew  Henry  says :  "  He  lays  down  his  argument  from 
the  Lord's  Supper,  a  feast  on  the  sacrificed  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord." 

Macknight  translates :  "  Is  it  (the  cup  of  blessing)  not  the 
joint  participation  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  Is  it  (the  loaf 
which  we  break)  not  the  joint  participation  of  the  body  of 
Christ?" 

Adam  Clarke  gives  this  as  the  force  of  the  words :  "  We 
who  partake  of  this  sacred  cup,  in  commemoration  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  are  made  partakers  of  His  body  and  bloody  and  thus 
have  fellowship  with  Him." 

CoNYBEARE  and  HowsoN  thus  paraphrase  the  words :  "  When 


CONCESSIONS   OF  UN- LUTHERAN  WRITERS.     639 

we  drink  the  cup  of  blessing  winch  we  bless,  are  we  not  all 
partakers  in  the  blood  of  Christ?  When  we  break  the  bread, 
are  we  not  all  partakers  in  the  body  of  Christ?  "  and  say  in 
the  note :  "  Literally,  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it 
not  a  common  partici[)ation  in  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  common  participation  in  the  body 
of  Christ  ? " 

Parkhurst,  in  his  Greek  Lexicon,  gives  as  the  proper  defi- 
nition of  koinonia  in  this  passage,  "  a  partaking,  participa- 
tion." 

Dr.  Robinson  defines  the  word,  "  a  partaking,  sharing,"  and 
cites  1  Cor.  x.  16  as  an  illustration  of  the  meaning  "  participa- 
tion." 

Alford  :  "  Koinonia,  the  participation  (^.  e.  that  whereby 
the  act  of  participation  takes  place)  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 
The  strong  literal  sense  must  here  be  held  fast,  as  constituting 

the  very  kernel  of  the  Apostle's  argument If  we  are  to 

render  this  '  estin,'  rejyresents  or  symbolizes^  the  argument  is 

MADE  VOID." 

Dr.  John  W.  I^evin,  in  his  Mystical  Presence,  speaking  of 
the  language  in  this  place,  says  :  "  This  much  it  does  most  cer- 
tainly imply,  that  the  communion  is  something  more  than  fig- 
urative or  moral.  It  is  the  communion  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood,  a  real  participation  in  His  true  human  life,  as  the  one 
only  and  all-sufficient  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world." 

Gill,  the  great  Baptist  Rabbinist,  on  the  words :  "  The 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  ?  "  says :  "  It  is  ;  for  not  only  believers  by  this  act  have 
communion  with  His  mystical  body,  the  Church,  but  icith  His 
natu7rd  body,  which  was  broken  for  them  ;  they,  in  a  spiritual 
sense,  and  by  faith,  eat  His  flesh,  as  well  as  drink  His  blood, 
and  partake  of  Him." 

Dr.  Schmucker,  in  his  Catechism  says,  that  "  worthy  com- 
municants, in  this  ordinance,  by  faith  spiritually  feed  on  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer,  thus  holding  communion  or 
fellowship  with  Him,"  and  cites  1  Cor.  x.  16  to  prove  it. 

Dr.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  says :  "  It  is  here  assumed  that 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  brings  us  into  communion  with 


640  CONSERVATIVE    RE  FOR  MAT  I  OK. 

Christ.  .  .  .  The  Apostle's  argument  is  founded  on  the  assump- 
tion that  a  participation  of  the  cup  is  a  participation  of  the 
blood  of  Christ ;  and  that  a  participation  of  the  bread  is  a  par- 
ticipation of  the  body  of  Christ.  Is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ ;  that  is,  is  it  not  the  means  of  participating 
in  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  He  who  partakes  of  the  cup  partakes 
of  Christ's  blood.  ...  By  partaking  of  the  bread,  we  partake 
of  the  body  of  Christ." 

5.  AVe  will  cite  as  representative  of  German  Interpreta- 
Tiox  four  names:  the  first  representing  the  Ancient  Lutheran 
Orthodoxy  ;  the  second  the  intermediate  Lutheran  Theology 
of  the  18th  Century  ;  the  third  the  Unionistic  Theology  of  our 
own  era ;  and  the  fourth,  a  witness  to  the  irresistible  character 
of  the  text,  which  compels  a  rationalistic  commentator  to  ac- 
knowledge its  true  force. 

Calovius:  "The  earthly  thing,  to  wit,  the  bread,  is  taken 
in  an  earthly  manner  :  the  heavenly  thing,  to  wit,  the  body  of 
Christ,  is  taken  and  eaten  in  a  manner  fitting  it,  that  is,  a 
heavenly  or  mystical  manner.  As  that  union  is  sacramental 
and  is  in  mystery,  and  hence  called  mystical^  the  manner  of 
eating  which  depends  upon  it,  is  as  regards  the  body  of  Christ 
^plainly  mystical.,  sacramental.,  and  incomprehensille  to  human 
reason,'  as  Hunnius  correctly  observes."- 

S.  J.  Baumgarten  :  "  The  communion  of  the  cup  with  the 
blood  of  Christ,  can  here  be  taken  in  a  twofold  mode :  1.  The 
cup  stands  in  communion  with  the  blood  of  Christ  —  is  a 
means  of  oflfering  and  imparting  it.  2.  The  cup  is  a  means 
of  uniting  the  participants  with  the  blood  of  Christ  — a  means 
whereby  they  are  made  participants  of  it.  The  second  presup- 
poses the  first." 

Olsiiausen  :  "  Were  there  in  the  Supper  no  communion  with 
Christ  but  in  spirit,  the  words  would  be  '  Communion  of 
Christ,'  not  'communion  of  the  body,'  'communion  of  the 
blood  of  Christ.'  As  of  course  the  language  refers  to  Christ 
in  His  state  of  exaltation,  it  is  of  His  glorified  flesh  and  blood 
it  speaks:  these  come,  in  the  Supper,  into  attingence  with 
the  participant,  iind  thus  mediate  the  communion." 

Rueckert  is  the  last  name  we  shall  cite,  and,  as  a  witness  on 


THE  COMMUNION  OF  THE   UNWORTHY.  641 

the  point  here  involved,  no  name  could  carry  more  force  with 
it.  Rueckert  is  one  of  the  greatest  scholars  of  tlie  age,  a  liis- 
torico-critical  rationalist,  at  the  furthest  extreme  from  the 
Lutheran  position,  making  it  his  peculiar  boast  that,  rising 
above  all  Confessions  and  parties,  he  accepts  the  results  of 
scientific  exegesis,  lie  professes  to  make  it  his  law,  "that 
you  are  to  lend  nothing  that  is  yours  to  your  author,  and  omit 
nothing  that  is  his— you  are  not  to  ask  what  he  ought  to  say, 
nor  be  afraid  of  what  he  does  say."  Rueckert,  in  his  work  on 
the  Lord's  Supper,*  after  a  very  thorough  investigation  of  the 
sense  of  1  Cor.  x.,  says:  "Paul  .  .  sees  in  the  Supper  Christ's 
body  and  blood  .  .  as  supersensuous  and  heavenly,  Avhich  He 
gives  as  food  and  drink  at  His  table  to  believers,  and  indeed 
without  any  exception,  and  without  distinction  between  worthy 
and  unworthy  participants."  He  then  shows  that  there  is  no 
possibility  of  evading  the  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  except  by 
rejecting  the  authority  of  Paul,  and  by  appealing  to  "  the  de- 
cision of  rational  thinking."  Rationalism  itself,  in  the  person 
of  one  of  its  greatest  representatives,  being  judge,  it  has  no 
foothold  in  the  text.  Rueckert,  moreover,  confesses  that  the 
earliest  faith  of  the  Church  agrees  with  this  result  of  the  latest 
scientific  exegesis:  "That  in  the  Supper  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  given  and  received,  vms  the  universal  faith ^  from 
the  beginning.  .  .  .  This  faith  abode  in  the  aftertime ;  the 
Christian  -people  (Gemeinde)  never  had  any  other,  and  in  the 
Ancient  Church  it  had  not  a  solitary  person  to  oppose  it ;  the 
extremest  heretics  themselves  never  did  it." 

The  Fifth  Proposition  in  the  analytical  view  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Auojsburo^  Confession  is :     That  the  true     ,.  „.    ^ 

'~  ,  *  •    The    Corn- 

body  and  blood  of  Christ,  truly  present  and  truly  mnnion  of  thj 

communicated    under   the   species   of    bread    and     '"^"'"'''^■•t 

wine,  are  received  by  all  coramunicants.\ 

"  He   that   eateth    and    drinketh    unworthily,   eateth   and 

drinketh  damnation  {or^  judgment)  to  himself,  not  discern- 

*1836.     Pages  241,  297. 

f  See  Seb.  Schmidt:  De  princip.  s.  fundam,  praes.  Corpor.  et.  Sanguin.  Christi 
Argentor,  1699,     Chap.  xi. 

J  German :  da  .  .  genommon  wird.     Latin :  vescentibus.     Apology :   his    qui 
sacramentum  accipiunt. 
41 


642  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

ing  (5iaxpivwv)  the  Lord's  body,"  (because  he  hath  not  distin- 
guished the  body.  .  .  S3^r.  Ether.  Eateth  and  drinketh  con- 
demnation on  himself,  by  not  discerning.  .  .  Syr.  Murdock) : 
"Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  (i^ox^i)  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord,"  (is  guilty  of  tlie  blood  of  the  Lord  and  of  His 
body).     Syr.  Etheridge.     1  Cor.  xi.  27-29. 

From  the  four  propositions  already  established  it  is  a  neces- 
sary inference,  and  in  the  cogent  texts  just  quoted  it  is  ex- 
pressly taught,  that,  while  none  but  those  who  receive  in  faith 
receive  savingly,  all  who  come  to  the  Supper  receive  sacnimcnt- 
ally^  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  As  those  to  whom  the 
gospel  is  a  savor  of  death  unto  death,  receive  in  common  with 
those  to  whom  it  is  a  savor  of  life  unto  life,  one  and  the  same 
thing  outw\ardiy,  to  wit:  the  gospel;  so  do  those  who  abuse, 
to  their  own  condemnation,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  those  who 
rightly  use  it  to  their  soul's  welfare,  receive  one  and  the  same 
thing  sacramental ly.  It  is  the  very  essence  of  the  sin  of  the 
rejection  of  the  gospel,  that,  receiving  it  outwardly,  with  the 
attendant  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in,  with,  and  under  it,  the 
rejector  has  not  received  it  inwardly,  and  thus  makes  it  not 
merely  practically  void,  but  pernicious  to  his  soul.  So  is  it 
the  very  essence  of  the  sin  of  unworthy  treatment  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  that,  receiving  it  in  its  sacred  and  divine  element,  as 
well  as  in  its  outward  one,  the  communicant  makes  no  inward 
appropriation  of  the  benefit  there  offered,  but  turns,  by  his 
unbelief,  the  food  of  his  soul  to  its  poison.  In  the  passages 
quoted  immediately  after  the  Thesis,  men,  whose  unworthiness- 
is  such  that  their  condemnation  is  sealed  by  their  eating,  arc 
represented  as  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  is, 
the  object  of  their  abuse  is  specifically  declared  to  be,  not  bread 
and  wine,  either  in  themselves  or  as  symbols,  but  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  That  which  they  are  treating  with  contumely 
is  said  to  be  the  ))ody  of  the  Lord,  and  their  crime  is  that 
they  do  not  discern  it:  "  not  discerning  the  body  of  the  Lord." 
But  unl)elief  would  be  its  own  safeguard,  if  it  were  the  com- 
municant's faith,  and  not  the  will  and  institution  of  Christ, 
which  is  the  ground  of  the  presence.     The  unbeliever  could 


THE   COMMUNION  OF  THE   UNWORTHY.         643 

say :  "  As  I  have  no  faith,  there  is  no  body  of  Christ  to  dis- 
cern;  there  is  no  body  and  blood  of  which  I  can  be  guilty." 
Of  such  men,  moreover,  the  Apostle,  in  the  previous  chapter, 
declared  that  the  broken  bread  and  the  cup  of  blessing  are  to 
them  also  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Let  any  man  weigh  solemnly  the  import  of  the  thought : 
He  that  eateth  unworthily  of  this  bread  is  guilty  of  the  body 
of  the  Lord  ;  he  that  drinketh  unworthily  of  this  cup  is  guilty 
of  the  blood  of  the  Lord  ;  and  then  let  him  ask  himself,  before 
the  Searcher  of  hearts,  whether  he  dare  resolve  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per into  a  mere  eating  of  a  symbol  of  Christ's  body,  the  drink- 
ing of  a  symbol  of  Christ's  blood  ?  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
in  the  case  of  the  Corinthians,  deeply  as  they  had  sinned,  there 
was  no  designed  dishonor  of  the  sacramental  elements,  still  less 
of  Christ,  whom  they  set  forth  ;  there  was  no  hatred  to  Christ, 
no  positive  infidelity,  and  yet  an  unworthy  drinking  of  the 
sacramental  cup  made  them  '^  guilty  of  the  blood  of  Christ,'' 
The  Apostle  expressly  tells  us,  too,  whereon  the  fearfulness  of 
their  guilt  and  the  terribleness  of  their  penalty  turned  :  ''  They 
ate  and  drank  damnation  to  themselves,  not  discerning  (making 
no  difference  of)  the  Lord's  body."  But  on  all  the  rationalistic 
interpretations  there  is  no  body  of  the  Lord  there  to  discern. 

To  "  discern  '*  (diakrinein),  elsewhere  translated  to  ''  make 
or  put  differences  between,"  involves  a  correct  mental  and 
moral  judgment ;  it  means  to  distinguish  between  two  things 
which  there  is  a  liability  of  confounding,  to  mark  the  distinc- 
tion between  one  thing  and  another.  "  Can  I  discern  between 
good  and  evil  ?  "  ''  That  I  may  discern  between  good  and  bad." 
''  Cause  them  to  discern  between  clean  and  unclean,"  that  is, 
to  mark  and  make  the  distinction,  in  mind,  feeling,  and  act. 
To  "  discern  the  body  of  the  Lord,"  is,  therefore,  to  discrimi- 
nate between  it  and  something  Avhich  is,  or  might  be,  con- 
founded with  it,  to  mark  its  difference  from  some  other  thinsr, 
to  believe,  feel,  and  act  in  the  conviction  that  it  is  not  that 
other  thing,  but  is  the  body  of  the  Lord.  The  point  is.  That 
which  you  receive  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  mere  bread  and 
wine,  as  your  conduct  would  imply  that  it  is,  but  is  also  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  therefore,  your  guilt  (taking  its 


644  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

root  in  a  failure  to  discern  this  body  and  blood)  is  not  that  of 
the  abuse  of  bread  and  wine,  but  of  the  indignity  offered  to 
His  body  and  blood  which  they  communicate ;  therefore  your 
punishment  is  not  simply  that  of  men  guilty  of  gluttony  and 
drunkenness,  but  that  of  men  guilty  of  a  wrong  done  to  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  therefore  sickness  and  death  have 
been  sent  to  warn  you  of  your  awful  crime,  and  if  these  warn- 
ings be  not  heeded,  your  final  doom  will  be  to  perish  with  the 
world  (v.  32). 

The  sacramental  communion  was  ordained  of  Christ  as  the 
means  of  the  spiritual  communion.  In  its  divine  essence,  that 
is,  in  its  sacramental  character,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  unchange- 
able, but  its  effects  and  blessings  are  conditioned  upon  the  faith 
of  the  recipient.  The  same  sunlight  falls  upon  the  eye  of  the 
blind  and  of  the  seeing  alike ;  both  eyes  alike  receive  it,  but 
the  eye  of  the  seeing  alone  perceives  it ;  it  is  communicated  to 
both  ;  it  is  "  discerned  "  by  but  the  one.  But  the  analogy  fails 
at  an  important  point:  In  spirituals  the  lack  of  the  perception 
with  the  reception  is  voluntary,  and,  therefore,  while  the  blind 
eye  suffers  privation  only,  the  blind  soul  comes  under  condem- 
nation. It  is  the  blind  man's  misfortune  that  he  does  not  see, 
it  is  the  unbelieving  man's  guilt  that  he  does  not  discern.  The 
diseased  and  the  sound  eat  of  the  same  natural  bread  ;  but  to 
one  it  brings  strength,  to  another  it  is  without  effect,  and  to 
yet  another  it  brings  nausea  and  agony.  The  difference  of 
result  is  owing  to  the  difference  of  condition  in  the  recipient. 
The  Holy  Spirit  breathes  forever  on  and  in  the  word,  and  is, 
with  it,  received  by  all  who  hear  the  word,  quickening  the 
yielding  heart,  and  hardening  the  heart  which  resists  Him. 

Jesus  said  to  every  one  of  the  disciples  present,  prol)ably  to 
Judas,  who  betrayed,  certainly  to  Peter,  who  soon  after  denied 
Him :  ''  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body  given  for  you  ;  "  and  the 
ministers  of  Clirist  for  eighteen  centuries  have  said  to  every 
communicant,  believing  or  unbelieving,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  the 
body  of  Clirist  given  for  you,"  and  what  Christ  said,  and  they 
say,  is  unchangingly  true.  So  far  there  is  no  distinction  made 
by  the  character  of  the  recipient,  for  as  much  as  this  depended 
upon  Christ's  will,  and  is  therefore  unchanging.     "  The  gifts 


TEE  COMMUNION  OF  THE   UNWORTHY.         645 

of  God  are  without  repentance,"  that  is,  there  is  no  vacilla- 
tion, repentance,  or  fluctuation  of  mind  in  God.  But  when  to 
these  absolute  words  is  added :  "  Bo  this  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  there  comes  in  something  dependent  upon  man's  will,  and 
which  may.  therefore,  fluctuate.  As  it  is  true,  even  of  the 
man  that  perishes,  that  Christ's  body  was  broken  and  Ilis 
blood  shed  for  him,  "for  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  grace 
of  God,  tasted  death  for  every  man  ;  "  as  it  is  true  that  every 
man  in  the  Eesurrection  shall  be  called  forth  from  the  grave, 
for  "  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive," 
though  some  shall  rise  to  glory,  and  others  to  shame ;  so  is  it 
true  that  every  man,  however  unworthy,  sacramentally  par- 
takes of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  though  it 
be  to  his  own  condemnation.  As  the  unbelieving,  under  the 
Old  Dispensation,  were,  equally  with  the  believing,  outwardly 
sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  though  they  received 
not,  for  lack  of  faith,  its  blessings ;  as  those  who  are  unbeliev- 
ing and  baptized  receive  the  baptism  itself  in  its  sacramental 
entireness,  though  they  do  not  appropriate  its  blessings,  so  do  the 
communicants  in  the  Holy  Supper  confirm  the  testimony,  that, 
although  unbelief  shuts  us  out  from  the  blessings  of  the  prom- 
ises and  ordinances,  we  cannot  thereby  make  them  of  none 
efl^ect.  Our  faith  does  not  make,  and  our  unbelief  cannot 
unmake  them.  -  The  same  objective  reality  is  in  every  case 
presented,  and  in  every  case  it  is  one  and  the  same  thing,  whose 
benefits  faith  appropriates,  and  unbelief  rejects. 

That  Judas  was  at  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  seems  highly 
probable.  Matthew  and  Mark,  after  telling  us  that  our  Lord 
*'  sat  down  with  the  twelve.,^''  describe  the  Institution  of  the  Sup- 
per without  giving  a  hint  of  the  departure  of  Judas.  Luke, 
who  proposed  to  write  "in  order,"  and  who  is  generally  re- 
garded as  most  precise  in  his  chronology,  in  direct  connection 
with  the  words  of  the  Supper,  immediately  after  them,  tells  us 
our  Lord  said  :  "  But,  behold  !  the  hand  of  him  that  betrayeth 
Me  is  with  Me  on  the  table."  (Luke  xxii.  2L)  The  force  of 
the  w^ord  "immediately,"  in  John  xiii.  30,  is  not  such  as  to 
exclude  the  possibility  of  what  Luke  seems  so  distinctly  to 
assert,  and  what  the  two   other  synoptical  evangelists  more 


646  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

than  imply,  to  wit,  that  Judas  was  present  at  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  such  is  the  judgment  of  the  oldest  and  best  commen- 
tators, and,  among  them,  of  Calvin  himself,  and  of  others,  who, 
in  common  with  him,  had  a  doctrinal  interest  in  denying  the 
presence  of  Judas.  Moreover,  as  John  does  not  give  an  account 
of  the  Institution  of  the  Supper,  we  may  naturally  settle  the 
chronological  and  other  questions  connected  with  it  from  the 
synoptists.  But  if  our  Lord  could  say  to  Judas  also,  "  Take, 
eat,  this  is  My  body,"  then  the  sacramental  character  of  the 
Supper  cannot  depend  upon  the  w^orthiness  or  faith  of  the 
receiver. 

In  all  divine  provisions  for  the  salvation  of  man,  we  must 
discriminate  between  the  essence^  which  is  of  God,  and  is,  like 
Ilim,  unchanging,  and  the  use  of  them,  Avhich  is  by  man,  and 
is  conditioned  on  his  faith.  The  divine  reality  is  neither 
affected  by  the  character  of  the  giver,  nor  of  the  receiver,  as 
a  gold  coin  does  not  cease  to  be  gold,  though  the  giver  hands 
it  away  carelessly  as  a  piece  of  brass,  and  the  receiver  takes  it 
as  brass  and  casts  it  into  the  mire.  Faith  is  not  a  Philoso- 
pher's Stone ;  it  cannot  convert  lead  into  gold  ;  it  can  only 
grasp  what  is.  IS'or  can  unbelief  by  a  reverse  process  convert 
gold  into  lead  ;  it  can  only  reject  what  is.  "  Unto  us  was  the 
gospel  preached,  as  well  as  unto  them  ;  but  the  word  preached 
did  not  2'>'>^<yfit  them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith  in  them  that 
heard  it."  The  gospel,  the  word,  the  sacrament,  remain  one 
and  the  same,  but  the  profit  connected  with  them  depends  upon 
the  faith  of  those  that  receive  them. 

God  is  not  far  from  any  one  of  us,  yet  none  but  the  believing 
realize  the  benefits  of  His  presence.  The  multitude  thronged 
and  pressed  upon  Jesus ;  His  presence  was  equally  real  in  its 
essence  to  all,  but  the  saving  efficacy  of  it  went  forth  in  virtue 
only  to  the  woman  who  touched  His  clothes  in  faith.  (Mark 
V.  30.)  So  Ghrist  is  present  in  the  sacramental  drapery  alike 
to  all  communicants,  but  the  touch  of  faith  is  needed  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  virtue  of  His  healing.  The  touch  of  those  who 
crucified  our  Lord  was  no  less  rehl  than  that  of  the  woman 
whose  touch  brought  healing ;  but  their  touch,  like  the  un- 
worthy eating  and  drinking,  made  them  "  guilty  of  the  body 


THE   COMMUNION  OF  THE   UNWORTHY.         647 

and  blood  of  the  Lord."  And  as  no  indignity  which  they 
could  offer  to  the  raiment  of  our  Lord  could  make  them  guilty 
of  His  body  and  blood,  so  may  we  reason  that  no  indignity 
offered  to  bread  and  wine,  even  if  they  were  the  sacramental 
medium  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  still  less  if  they 
w^ere  but  bread  and  wine,  could  make  those  who  offered  it 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
terms  in  which  the  guilt  of  the  unworthy  communicants  is 
characterized,  and  the  fearful  penalties  witli  which  it  was  vis- 
ited, to  wit,  temporal  judgments,  even  unto  death,  and  eternal 
condemnation  with  the  world,  if  the  sin  was  not  repented  of, 
make  it  inconceivable  that  the  objective  element  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  bread  and  wine  merely  ;  but  if  the  body  and  blood 
be  there  objectively,  then  must  they  be  received  sacramentally 
by  all  communicants.  If  it  be  said  Christ  cannot  be  substan- 
tially present  to  unworthy  communicants  according  to  His 
human  nature,  otherwise  they  must  derive  benefit  from  it,  it 
might  be  correctly  replied,  neither  can  He  be  substantially 
present  with  them  according  to  His  divine  nature,  otherwise 
they  must  derive  benefit  from  that ;  but  the  latter  is  conceded 
by  the  objector,  therefore  he  must  concede  that  his  argument 
is  of  no  weight  against  the  possibility  of  the  former.  Christ 
is  a  Saviour,  but  He  is  also  a  judge. 

But  if  it  be  granted  that  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  Supper  is  one  which  is  fixed,  absolute,  and 
unchanging,  then  must  it  be  substantial,  and  not  imaginary ; 
not  a  thing  of  our  minds,  but  of  His  wonderful  person  ;  not 
ideal,  but  true ;  faith  does  not  make  it,  but  finds  it,  unto  life ; 
unbelief  does  not  unmake  it,  but,  to  its  own  condemnation,  fails 
to  discern  it.  The  sacramental  presence  is  fathomless,  like  the 
Incarnation  ;  like  it,  also,  it  is  in  the  sphere  of  supernatural 
reality,  to  which  the  natural  is  as  the  shadow.  The  presence 
of  the  communicant  at  the  Supper  belongs  to  a  lower  sphere 
of  actuality  than  the  presence  of  the  undivided  Christ  in  it ; 
and  the  outward  taking  and  eating  is  the  divinely  appointed 
means  whereby  the  ineffable  mystery  of  the  communion  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood  is  consummated,  a  communion  heav- 
enly and  spiritual  in  its  manner  over  against  all  that  is  earthly 


648  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

and  fleshly  ;  but  in  its  essence  more  true  than  all  earthly  truth, 
more  real  than  all  earthly  reality,  more  substantial  than  all 
earthly  substance.  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  more 
truly  present  in  the  Supper  than  are  the  bread  and  wine, 
because  their  sphere  of  presence  is  divine ;  the  bread  and  wine 
are  but  the  gifts  of  the  hand  of  God,  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  inseparable  constituents  of  God's  incarnate  person. 

The  Xon-Lutheran  interpreters  have  made  concessions  of 
great  importance  in  their  interpretation  of  these  texts.  Gual- 
THER,  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Zurich  divines  (d.  1586),  says : 
''Shall  be  held  guilty  of  the  same  crime  with  Judas  who 
betrayed  Christ,  with  the  Jews  and  soldiers  w^io  scourged 
Him,  spit  upon  Him,  wounded,  crucified  Him,  and  shed  His 
blood." 

Pareus  :  Heidelberg  (d.  1622) :  "  Judas  betrayed,  the  Jews 
condemned,  the  soldiers  pierced  Christ's  body  and  shed  His 
blood  upon  the  Cross.  They  who  abuse  the  sacrament  are 
absolutely  partakers  in  their  crime  {sceleri  prorsus  communi- 
cant).''' 

Sebastian  Meyer,  of  Berne:  ''  They  commit  murder  {ccedem 
committere)  and  shed  the  Redeemer's  blood,"  "  incur  the  dread- 
ful crime  of  parricide." 

One  more  proposition  remains  to  be  touched,  but  it  is  nega- 
tive in  its  character,  and  in  this  dissertation  we  have  proposed 
to  confine  ourselves  to  the  positive  and  thetical.  Here,  there- 
fore, we  reach  the  end  of  our  exhibition  of  the  positive  propo- 
sitions in  which  our  great  Confession  sets  forth  the  faith  of 
our  Church.  We  have  the  five  simple  propositions  which  are 
yielded  by  the  analysis  of  the  Tenth  Article.  We  have  viewed 
them  purely  as  Scriptural  questions.  We  have  treated  them 
very  much  as  independent  propositions,  establishing  each  on 
special  evidence  of  its  own.  But,  while  the  argument  for  the 
faith  of  our  Church  is  so  strong  on  each  head  as  well  as  on  the 
whole  as  to  bear  even  this  severe  process,  it  should  not  be  for- 
gotten that  none  of  these  are,  in  fact,  isolated.  They  cling 
together  with  all  the  internal  coherence  of  divine  truth.  The 
truth  of  any  one  of  them  implies  the  truth  of  all  of  them.  If 
we  have  failed  in  establishing  four  separately,  yet  have  sue- 


THE   COMMUNION  OF  THE   UNWORTHY.         649 

ceeded  in  establishing  one,  then  have  we  in  establishing  that 
established  the  five. 

The  sense  of  the  words  of  the  Institution  which  our  Church 
confesses,  which  is  derived  from  the  words  themselves,  is  sus- 
tained by  every  Scripture  allusion  to  them.  ISTot  only  is  there 
not  the  faintest  hint  anywhere  that  they  are  figurative,  but 
every  fresh  allusion  to  them  gives  new  evidence  that  they  are 
to  be  taken  as  they  sound.  If  the  offerincj  of  the  ancient  sacri- 
fices pointed  to  a  true  oifering  of  Christ,  the  eating  of  the  sacri- 
fices necessarily  points  to  a  true,  though  supernatural,  commu- 
nion of  the  body  and  blood  which  He  oiFered.  If  the  slaying  of 
the  Paschal  Lamb  pointed  to  the  slaying  of  Christ's  body,  the 
sacramental  reception  of  the  body  of  the  Lamb  of  God  must  be 
a  part  of  the  JS'ew  Testament  Passover  ;  the  Lord's  Supper  can- 
not substitute  an  unreality  for  a  reality,  but  must  substitute 
a  higher  reality  for  a  lower  one.  If  Moses  meant  what  he  said 
when  he  declared,  as  he  sprinkled  the  book  and  the  people: 
"  This  is  the  blood  of  the  Testament  which  God  hath  enjoined 
unto  you  "  (Heb.  ix.  20),  then  must  our  Lord  be  accepted  at 
His  word,  when,  with  the  covenanting  terms  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  Testament  of  Moses,  so  clearly  in  his  eye,  and  mean- 
ing to  mark  the  IN'ew  Testament  antithesis.  He  says :  "  This  is 
My  blood,  of  the  Kew  Testament.''  Every  Scripture  declara- 
tion in  regard  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  points,  with  an 
unvarying  tendency,  to  the  great  result  which  is  treasured  in 
the  faith  of  our  Church.  When  we  ask.  What  is  it  which 
Christ  tells  us  to  Take,  eat?  He  replies.  This  is  My  body,  not 
This  is  a  sign  of  My  body.  When  we  ask.  What  does  the 
bread  communicate?  St.  f*aul  replies,  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  not  the 
communion  of  the  sign  of  His  body.  When  we  ask,  What  is 
he  guilty  of  who  eats  and  drinks  unworthily?  the  answer  is, 
He  is  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  not  of  the  sign 
of  the  body  or  sign  of  the  blood.  When  we  ask.  How  did  the 
unworthy  communicant  come  to  incur  this  guilt?  what  did  he 
fail  to  discern?  the  reply  is,  Not  discerning  the  Lord's  body, 
not  that  he  failed  to  discern  the  sign  or  symbol  of  Christ's 
body.     We  cannot  tear  from  its  place  the  sacramental  doctrine 


650  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

of  our  Church  without  tearing  up  the  whole  Evangelical  sys- 
tem. The  principles  of  interpretation  which  relieve  us  of  the 
Eucharistic  mystery  take  from  us  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity, 
the  Incarnation,  and  the  Atonement.  We  cannot  remove 
Christ  from  the  Sapper  and  consistently  leave  ITim  anywhere 
else,  and  we  can  take  no  part  of  Christ  from  the  Supper  with- 
out taking  away  the  whole.  The  very  foundations  of  our  faith 
give  way  under  the  processes  which  empty  tlie  Lord's  Supper 
of  its  divine  glory.  The  Sacramental  Presence  is  the  necessary 
sequel,  the  crowning  glory  of  the  Incarnation  and  Atonement ; 
and  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  word  which 
enahles  the  eye  of  Faith  to  see  God  in  the  body,  and  redemp- 
tion in  the  blood,  enables  it  to  see  the  body  in  the  bread,  and 
the  blood  in  the  cup,  not  after  the  manner  of  the  first  man, 
who  is  of  the  earth,  earthy,  but  after  the  manner  of  the  second 
Man,  who  is  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

The  Lutheran  Church  believes,  on  the  sure  warrant  of  God's 
,,,   ,  word,  that  the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  remains  a 

VI.    Summary  '  ^ 

View  of  the  Lu-  true  liuman  body,  and  as  to  its  natural  and  deter- 
IfThTsa^crrmr.  miuatc  presence  has  been  removed  from  earth,  and 
tai  Presence  of  ^g  ^j^  ^|^g  glory  of  the  worM  of  angels  and  the  re- 
poh.ts'.  r Model  deemed.  She  also  believes  that  in  and  through  the 
of  Presence.  divine  uaturc  with  which  it  forms  one  person,  it  is 
present  on  earth  in  another  sense,  no  less  true  than  the  former. 
She  believes  that  the  sacramental  elements  are  divinely  ai>- 
pointed  through  the  power  of  the  Saviour's  own  benediction, 
as  the  medium  through  which  we  participate,  after  a  spiritual, 
supernatural,  heavenly,  substantial,  objective,  and  true  man- 
ner, *'in  the  communion  of  His  body  and  of  His  blood."  (1 
Cor.  X.  16.)  Our  Church  never  has  denied  that  the  ascension 
of  Christ  was  real,  literal,  and  local ;  never  has  denied  that  His 
body  has  a  determinate  presence  in  heaven  ;  never  has  main- 
tained that  it  has  a  local  presence  on  earth.  Neither  does  she 
impute  to  Him  two  lx)dies  —  one  present  and  one  absent,  one 
natural  and  the  other  glorified  —  but  she  maintains  that  one 
body,  forever  a  natural  and  true  body  as  to  its  essence,  but 
no  longer  in  its  natural  or  earthly  condition,  but  glorified,  is 
absent,  indeed,  in  one  mode,  but  present  in  another.     As  she 


MODES   OF  PRESENCE.  651 

believes  that  God  is  really  one  in  one  respect,  and  no  less 
really  three  in  another  respect,  so  does  she  believe  that  the 
body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  really  absent  in  one  respect, 
and  just  as  really  present  in  another.  Christ  has  left  us,  and 
He  never  leaves  us  —  lie  has  gone  from  us,  and  lie  is  ever 
present  with  us ;  lie  has  ascended  far  above  all  heavens,  but 
it  is  that  lie  may  till  all  things.  As  His  divine  nature,  which 
in  its  totality  is  in  heaven,  and  in  its  fulness  is  in  Christ  bodily, 
is  on  earth  while  it  is  in  heaven,  as  that  divine  nature  is  pres- 
ent with  us,  without  extension  or  locality,  is  on  earth  without 
leaving  heaven,  is  present  in  a  manner  true,  substantial  and 
yet  incomprehensible,  so  does  it  render  the  body  of  Christ, 
which  is  one  person  with  it,  also  present.  That  body  in  its 
determinate  limitations  is  in  heaven,  and  in  and  of  itself  would 
be  there  alone,  but  through  the  divine,  in  consequence  of  the  per- 
sonal conjimction,  and  in  virtue  of  that  conjunction,  using  in 
the  whole  person  the  attributes  of  the  whole  person  in  both 
its  parts,  it  is  rendered  present.  It  is  present  without  exten- 
sion, for  the  divine  tlirough  which  it  is  present  is  unextended 
—  it  is  present  without  locality,  for  the  divine  through  which 
it  is  present  is  il local.  It  is  on  earth,  for  the  divine  is  on 
earth  —  it  is  in  heaven,  for  the  divine  remains  in  heaven,  and 
like  the  divine^  it  is  present  truly  and  substantially,  yet  incom- 
prehensibly. 

In  other  words,  as  our  Church  believes  that  the  one  essence 
of  God  has  two  modes  of  presence,  one  general  and  ordinary, 
by  which  it  is  present  to  all  creatures,  and  the  other  special 
and  extraordinary,  by  which  it  is  present,  so  as  to  constitute 
one  person,  after  which  mode  it  is  present  to  none  other  than 
to  the  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  both  modes  of  pres- 
ence, although  unlike  in  their  results,  are  equally  substantial; 
so  does  she  believe  that  this  one  humanity  taken  into  personal 
and  inseparable  union  with  this  one  essence,  has  two  modes  of 
presence:  one  determiniite,  in  which  it  is  related  to  space, 
throuo;h  its  own  inherent  properties ;  the  other  infinite,  in 
which  it  is  related  to  space  in  the  communion  of  the  divine 
attributes,  and  that  both  modes  of  presence,  though  unlike, 
are  equally  substantial. 


652  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Is  it  said  that  to  deny  that  Christ's  sacramental  presence  is 
local  is  to  deny  it  altogether ;  that  to  affirm  that  His  determi- 
nate presence  is  in  the  reahn  of  angels  and  of  the  glorified,  is 
to  affirm  that  He  has  no  presence  at  all  on  earth?  Be  it  said ; 
but  then,  at  least,  let  the  odious  libel  that  our  Church  teaches 
consubstantiation,  or  a  physical  presence,  or  a  corporeal  or 
carnal  mode  of  presence,  be  forever  dropped.  Our  Church 
never  has  denied  that,  in  the  sense  and  in  the  manner  in  which 
our  Lord  was  once  on  earth.  He  is  no  longer  here,  but  she 
maintains  that  the  illocal  is  as  real  as  the  local,  the  supernatu- 
ral is  as  true  as  the  natural.  "  A  local  absence,"  as  Andrese 
said,  in  his  argument  with  Beza  at  Montbeillard,  "  does  not 
prevent  a  sacramental  presence ; "  the  presence  of  Christ's 
humanity  on  earth,  through  the  Deity,  with  which  it  is  one 
person,  is  as  real  as  is  its  presence  through  the  properties  of 
its  own  essence  in  heaven.  The  soundest  theologians  do  not 
hesitate  to  declare  in  propositions  which  seem  contradictory, 
but  are  not,  "  God  is  everywhere,"  and  ''  God  is  nowhere,"  — 
everj^w^here  in  His  fathomless  omnipresence  —  nowhere  locally 
or  determinately ;  and  as  is  the  presence  of  the  divine,  such 
is  the  presence  it  imparts  to  the  humanity  which  is  personally 
united  with  it.  The  man  Christ  Jesus  is  with  us  after  one 
manner,  and  He  is  not  with  us  after  another  manner ;  He  is 
with  us  through  the  plenary  exercise  of  His  divine  majesty, 
not  with  us  in  the  local  or  determinate  restrictions  of  space. 
"  There  is  no  contradiction  in  attributing  contrary  things  to 
the  same  subject,  provided  they  be  affirmed  in  different  respects 
and  modes."* 

The  current  view  of  un-Lutheran  Protestantism  practically 
2.  A  Living  sa-  Is,  that  all  wc  need  for  our  redemption  is  a  dead 
'''°'""'  Christ.     We  are  to  look  back  to  Calvary  to  find 

peace  in  thinking  of  what  was  there  done,  and  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  we  are  to  look  back  to  the  sacrifice  once  made  for  our 
sins.  The  current  view  excludes  the  necessity  of  a  living 
Saviour  in  our  redemption.  According  to  it,  we  redeem  our- 
selves, or  the  Spirit  of  God  redeems  us,  by  what  Christ  once 
did,  and  witliout  any  personal  work  on  His  part  now.     To  the 

*Ciiemnitz,  De  duab.  Natuiis,  179. 


A   LIVIJ^G   SAVIOUR.  653 

theology  of  a  large  part  of  the  Church  it  would  be  no  disturb- 
ing element  if  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  had  been  separated 
from  the  human  after  the  resurrection.  Instead  of  a  robust 
and  mighty  faith  which  hangs  upon  a  living  Saviour,  and  lives 
by  Uis  life,  we  have  a  religion  of  sentiment  verging  away  into 
sentimentality  ;  a  religion  which  lives  by  its  own  thoughts 
about  a  Saviour  of  bygone  times.  We  have  had  in  our  hands 
a  book  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  an  American  preacher,  the 
frontispiece  of  which  represents  a  lonely  tombstone,  and  on  it 
the  words :  ''  To  the  memory  of  my  Saviour."  Nothing  could 
more  sadly,  yet  vigorously,  epitomize  the  tendency  of  which 
w^e  speak  —  the  graveyard  tendency,  which  turns  the  great 
festival  of  the  redemption  into  a  time  of  mourning,  and  coldly 
furnishes  forth  the  marriage  tables  with  the  baked  meats  of 
the  funeral.  The  glory  of  the  Lutheran  system  in  all  its  parts, 
and  especially  in  its  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is,  that  it 
accepts,  in  all  its  fulness,  the  Apostle's  argument,  "  If,  when 
we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
His  Son,  MUCH  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  His 
LIFE."  Never,  indeed,  has  the  human  heart  been  so  taught  as 
by  our  system  in  its  purity  to  turn  to  the  death  of  Christ  for 
hope  ;  but  our  Church  has  been  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit  too 
deeply  into  all  the  fulness  of  truth  to  make  an  antagonism 
between  the  death  of  her  Saviour  and  His  life. 

If  Christ  must  die  to  make  our  redemption,  He  must  live  to 
apply  it.  If  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  sacrament  of  the  redemp- 
tion made  by  His  death,  it  is  also  a  sacrament  of  the  same 
redemption  applied  by  His  life.  If  it  tells  us  that  His  body 
and  blood  were  necessary  to  make  our  redemption,  it  tells  us 
also  that  they  are  still  necessary  to  apply  the  redemption  they 
then  made.  He  made  the  sacrifice  once  for  all  —  He  applies  it 
constantly.  We  live  by  Him,  we  must  hang  on  Him  —  the 
vine  does  not  send  up  one  gush  of  its  noble  sap  and  then 
remain  inert.  It  receives  the  totality  of  life,  once  for  all,  but 
the  sap  which  sustains  it  must  flow  on  —  its  one,  unchanging 
and  abiding  life  puts  itself  forth  into  the  new  offshoots,  and 
by  constant  application  of  itself  maintains  the  old  branches. 
If  the  sap-life  ceases,  the  seed-life  cannot  save.    Cut  the  branch 


654  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

off,  and  the  memory  of  the  life  will  not  keep  it  from  wither- 
ing ;  it  must  have  the  life  itself — and  this  it-must  derive  suc- 
cessively from  the  vine.  It  could  not  exist  without  the  origi- 
nal life  of  the  vine,  nor  can  it  exist  without  the  present  life  of 
the  vine,  be  its  past  what  it  may.  Faith  cannot  feed  on  itself, 
as  many  seem  to  imagine  it  can — it  must  have  its  object.  The 
ordinances,  the  Word,  and  the  sacraments  give  to  it  that  by 
which  it  lives.  Faith  in  the  nutritious  power  of  bread  does 
not  nourish  —  the  bread  itself  is  necessary. 

The  man  who  feels  a  moral  repugnance  to  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine of  the  Eucharist,  will  find,  if  he  analyzes  his 

S.Thel'ropitia-  '  ,      .  . 

tion  and  ti)e  Sac-  fcelings  thoroughly,  that  they  take  their  root  in  a 
ramentai    Pres-  repuo^nancc  to  the  doctriuc  of  the  atonement  by 

euce.  . 

Christ's  body  and  blood.  The  man  who  asks  what 
use  is  there  in  a  sacramental  application  of  them  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  really  asks,  what  use  was  there  in  a  redemptory  ofter- 
ing  of  them  on  Calvary.  He  may  be  using  the  terms  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  if  He  takes  his  inmost  thoughts  before  his  God,  he 
will  probably  find  that  he  has  been  denying  the  true  vicarious 
character  of  the  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  —  that  he  has  fallen  into 
that  conception  of  the  sacrifice  on  Calvary  which  is  essentially 
Socinian,  for  everything  which  brings  down  the  oblation  of  the 
Son  of  God  into  the  sphere  of  the  natural  is  essentially  Socinian. 
He  will  find  that  in  his  view  his  Lord  is  only  a  glorious  mar- 
tyr, or  that  the  power  of  His  sacrifice  is  only  a  moral  power ; 
that  the  cross  is  but  a  mighty  sermon,  and  that  those  awful 
words,  which,  in  their  natural  import  unbare,  as  it  is  nowhere 
else  unbared,  the  heart  of  Deity  in  the  struggle  of  its  unspeak- 
able love  and  fathomless  purpose ;  that  all  these  are  oriental 
poesy  —  figures  of  speech — graces  of  language.  The  theory 
of  the  atonement,  which  pretends  to  explain  it,  is  rotten  at  the 
core.  The  atonement,  in  its  whole  conception,  belongs  to  a 
world  which  man  cannot  now  enter.  The  blessings  and  adap- 
tations of  it  we  can  comprehend  in  some  measure.  We  can 
approach  them  with  tender  hearts  full  of  gratitude ;  but  the 
essence  of  the  atonement  we  can  understand  as  little  as  we 
understand  the  essence  of  God. 

If  Christ,  through  His  body  broken,  made  remission  of  sins, 


PROPITIATION  AND  SACRAMENTAL  PRESENCE.     655 

why  do  we  ask  to  what  end  is  the  doctrine  that  the  same 
body  through  which  He  made  the  remission  is  that  through 
which  lie  applies  it?  His  body  as  such  could  make  no  remis- 
sion of  sins,  but,  through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  with  wliich  it 
was  conjoined  in  personal  unity,  it  made  redemption  —  llis 
body,  as  such^  may  have  no  power  to  apply  the  redemption  or 
to  be  with  the  redeemed,  but,  through  the  same  relation  by 
which  it  entered  into  the  sphere  of  the  supernatural  to  make 
redemption,  it  reveals  itself  now  in  that  same  sphere  to  apply 
it.  All  theology,  without  exception,  has  had  views  of  the 
atonement  which  were  lower  or  higher,  as  its  views  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  were  low  or  high.  Men  have  talked  and  writ- 
ten as  if  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  on  this  point,  were  a 
stupid  blunder,  forced  upon  it  by  the  self-will  and  obstinacy 
of  one  man.  The  truth  is,  that  this  doctrine,  clearly  revealed 
in  the  Kew  Testament,  clearly  confessed  by  the  early  Church, 
lies  at  the  very  heart  of  the  Evangelical  system  —  Christ  is  the 
centre  of  the  system,  and  in  the  Supper  is  the  centre  of  Christ's 
revelation  of  Himself.  The  glory  and  mystery  of  the  incarna- 
tion combine  there  as  they  combine  nowhere  else.  Communion 
with  Christ  is  that  by  which  we  live,  and  the  Supper  is  "  the 
Communion."  Had  Luther  abandoned  this  vital  doctrine,  the 
Evangelical  Protestant  Church  would  have  abandoned  him. 
He  did  not  make  this  doctrine  —  next  in  its  immeasurable  im- 
portance to  that  of  justihcation  by  faith,  with  which  it  indis- 
solubly  coheres  —  the  doctrine  made  him.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  most  vital  and  practical  in  the  whole 
range  of  the  profoundest  Christian  life  —  the  doctrine  which, 
beyond  all  others,  conditions  and  vitalizes  that  life,  for  in  it 
the  character  of  faith  is  determined,  invigorated,  and  purified 
as  it  is  nowhere  else.  It  is  not  only  a  fundamental  doctrine, 
but  is  among  the  most  fundamental  of  fundamentals. 

We  know  what  we  have  written.  We  know,  that  to  take 
our  Saviour  at  His  word  here,  to  receive  the  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament  in  their  obvious  intent,  is  to  incur  with  the 
current  religionism  a  reproach  little  less  bitter  than  if  we  had 
taken  up  arms  against  the  holiest  truths  of  our  faith.  We 
are  willino;  to   endure  it.     Our  fathers  were  willing  to  shed 


656  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

tlieir  blood  for  the  truth,  and  shall  we  refuse  to  incur  a  little 
obloquy  ?  The  fact  that  we  bear  the  name  of  a  Church  which 
Btood  firm  when  rationalizing  tendencies  directed  themselves 
with  all  their  fury  against  this  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God, 
increases  our  responsibility.  When,  at  a  later  and  sadder 
period,  she  yielded  to  subtlety  what  she  had  maintained  suc- 
cessfully against  force,  and  let  her  doctrine  fall,  she  fell  with 
it.  When  God  lifted  her  from  the  dust.  He  lifted  her  banner 
with  it,  and  on  that  banner,  as  before,  the  star  of  a  pure  Eu- 
charistic  faith  shone  out  amid  the  lurid  clouds  of  her  new 
warfare,  and  there  it  shall  shine  forever.  Our  Saviour  has 
spoken  ;  His  Church  has  spoken.  His  testimony  is  explicit,  as 
is  hers.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  suffered  more  for  her 
adherence  to  this  doctrine  than  from  all  other  causes,  but  the 
doctrine  itself  repays  her  for  all  her  suffering.  To  her  it  is  a 
very  small  thing  that  she  should  be  judged  of  man's  judg- 
ment; but  there  is  one  judgment  she  will  not,  she  dare  not 
hazard,  the  judgment  of  her  God,  which  they  eat  and  drink  to 
themselves  who  will  not  discern  the  Lord's  body  in  the  Sup 
per  of  the  Lord. 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood  in  what  we  have  said 
as  to  the  moral  repugnance  to  our  doctrine  of  the  Supper.  We 
distinguish  between  a  mere  intellectual  difficulty  and  an  aver- 
sion of  the  affections.  How  ^ew  Testament-like,  how  Lutheran 
have  sounded  the  sacramental  hymns  and  devotional  breath- 
ings of  men  whose  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper  embodied  little 
of  its  divine  glory.  The  glow  of  their  hearts  melted  the  frost- 
work of  their  heads.  When  they  treat  of  sacramental  com- 
munion, and  of  the  mystical  union,  they  give  evidence,  that, 
with  their  deep  faith  in  the  atonement,  there  is  connected,  in 
spite  of  the  rationalizing  tendency  which  inheres  in  their  sys- 
tem, a  hearty  acknowledgment  of  the  supernatural  and  incom- 
prehensible character  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  evidence  is  overwhelming,  that,  as  low  views  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  prevail,  in  that  proportion  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment exhibits  a  rationalizing  tendency.  We  repeat  the  propo- 
sition, contirmed  by  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  tliat  a 
moral  repugnance  to  the  doctrine  that  the  body  and  blood  of 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  ANCIENT  CHURCH.     657 

Christ  are  the  medium  through  which  redemption  is  applied^ 
has  its  root  in  a  moral  repugnance  to  the  doctrine  that  His 
precious  body  and  blood  are  the  medium  through  which  re- 
demption was  wrought. 

It  is  now  admitted  by  dispassionate  scholars,  who  are  not 
Lutheran  in  their  convictions, first,  that  the  Zvvino:- 
iian  doctrine  was  unknown  in  the  most  Ancient  of  ti.e  Exegesis 
Church.     Second  :  that  the  doctrine  of  our  Church   HT;;rrVVhe 
in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  certainly  the    Testimony  of  the 

1  .  •       1  r«      1  •  1  r-^^  /-><       i       i  •  Ancient  Cburch.* 

doctrine  ot   the  lathers  in  the   Church    Catholic, 

*  Albertinus:  De  Eucharistioe  Sacram.  Libri  tres.  Sec.  ex  Patribus.  Dav.  1G54. 
Folio.  Still  the  greatest  of  the  defences  of  the  Calvinistic  view. —  Bellarminus  : 
De  Controv.  Chr,  Fidei.  Paris.  1620.  Folio.  De  Euchar.  Lib.  II.  Chap.  I.  xxxix., 
Testimon.  Patrum.  The  greatest  single  piece  of  Polemic  in  defence  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  — Claude  :  The  Catholick  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  in  all  ages 
(in  answer  to  Arnaud)  touching  the  belief  of  the  Greek,  Moscovite,  Armenian, 
Jacobite,  Nestorian,  Coptic,  Maronite,  and  other  Eastern  Churches.  From  the 
French.  London,  1G83,  Folio.  (Calvinistic.)  —  Cosin  :  The  History  of  Popish 
Transubstantiation,  to  which  is  premised  and  opposed  the  Catholick  Doctrine  of 
.  .  the  Ancient  Fathers.  London,  1676,  8vo.  (Vigorously  Anti-Romish  in  its 
negations,  and  decidedly  Lutheranizing  in  its  affirmation.)  — Eucharist:  A  full 
view  of  the  Doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Ancient  Church  relating  to  London. 
1668,  4to.  (Calvinistic.)  —  Faber,  G.  S.:  Christ's  Discourse  at  Capernaum  fatal 
to  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  London,  1840.  8vo.  (Copious  Patristic 
Citation.)  —  Goode,  Wm.:  Nature  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Eucharist:  2  vols. 
Svo.  London.  1856.  Chap.  V.  The  Testimony  of  the  Fathers.  (A  tissue  of  par- 
tisan falsification.  Anglican  Low  Church.)  —  Hospiniax  :  Histor.  Sacramentariae 
Pars  Prior.  Exp,  Coen.  Domin,  in  primitiv.  et  Veter.  Eccles.  Genev.  1681.  Folio. 

—  Marheinecke  :  Sanct.  Patrum  de  Praes.  Chr.  in  Coen,  Dom.  Senten.  Triplex. 
Held.  1811.  4to. — Melanchthon  :  Sententire  veterum  aliquot  Scriptorum  de 
Coena  Domini,  (1530.)  Corpus  Reformat,  xxiii,  727-753. — (Ecolampadius  :  De 
Genuina  verb,  Dom.  juxta  vetustissimos  auctores  expositione  Bas,  1525.  Svo. 
Quid  de  Eucharistia  veter,  tarn  Graeci,  tum  Latini  senserunt.  Dialogus.  (1530) 
in  (Ecolampad.,  et  Zwingli  Epistola.  Lib.  III. — Pusey,  E.  B.:  The  Doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence,  as  contained  in  the  Fathers  from  the  death  of  St.  John  the  Evan- 
gelist to  the  Fourth  General  Council,  vindicated.    Oxford  and  London.  1855.  Svo. 

—  Waterland:  Review  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  as  laid  down  in  Scrip- 
ture and  antiquity.  Oxford,  1868.  Svo.  (Abundant  patristic  citation.)" — The 
recent  German  works  which  present  more  or  less  copiously  the  patristic  history 
of  the  doctrine  are:  1.  Doctrines  and  History:  Ebrard,  1845;  Kahnis,  1851; 
Ruckert,  1856;  2.  History:  DoUinger,  1826;  Engelhardt  (Ztschr.  fur  histor. 
theol.  1842.  Steiz,  Jahrb.  f.  dtsche  Theol,  1864-65.  Meier,  1842.  Baur,  Tertul- 
lian,  Doctr),  Tub,  Ztschr.  1839.2.  See  Kahnis  Dogm.  ii.  182.  Luthardt 
Dogm,  a  74. 

42 


658  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

from  the  Fourth  to  the  Ninth  Century — the  second  theological 
age,  the  golden,  or,  as  it  is  called,  the  classic  age  of  Christian 
antiquity,  to  wit:  that  "the  presence  of  the  Lord  in  the  Eu- 
charist "  is  "  real,  according  to  substance,  in,  with,  and  under 
the  species,"  (Alarheinecke).  The  first  age,  from  the  Apostolic 
writings  to  the  end  of  the  third,  is,  we  believe,  no  less  decided 
in  its  unity  on  the  same  doctrine.  To  this  conviction  the 
studies  of  the  greatest  of  the  English  patristic  scholars  of  our 
age  has  led  him.  Ilis  testimon^^,  given  as  the  final  result  of 
years  of  close  investigation,  has  probably  as  great  weight  as 
human  testimony  is  capable  of  having  on  a  point  of  this  kind. 
Of  his  vast  patristic  scholarship  there  is  no  dispute.  Of  his 
great  personal  purity  there  is  no  question.  Reared  in  a  Church 
which  confesses  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  Supper,  his  educa- 
tion was  adverse  to  the  perception  of  the  force  of  testimony 
sustaining  the  Lutheran  view.  If  he  be  charged  with  Roman- 
izing views,  in  some  parts  of  his  theological  thinking,  it  may 
heighten  the  value  of  his  testimony  here,  Avhere  he  maintains 
the  Catholicity  of  the  Lutheran  view,  over  against  the  Romish 
corruption  in  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  and  the  force 
of  the  whole  is  heightened  by  his  unconcealed  aversion,  in 
many  respects,  to  the  Lutheran  Church.  We  mean,  as  the 
reader  has  already  anticipated,  Dr.  Pusey.  In  his  vindication 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  real  Presence,  as  contained  in  the  fathers 
from  the  death  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist  to  the  Fourth  Gene- 
ral Council,  he  demonstrates  that  "  the  belief  that  the  elements 
remain  after  consecration  in  their  natural  substance  w^as  not  sup- 
posed of  old  to  involve  any  tenet  of  consubstantiation :  "  that, 
"  Consubstantiation  was  not  held  by  the  Lutheran  body :  " 
which  he  demonstrates  from  the  symbols  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  from  Luther  himself.  By  a  most  patient  exami- 
nation of  evidence,  which  he  cites  in  full,  he  shows,  upon  the 
one  hand,  that  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  is  no  doc- 
trine of  the  earliest  Church,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  a  true, 
objective  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  under 
the  bread  and  wine,  is  its  doctrine.  No  better  summary  of  his 
labors,  and  of  the  conviction  they  strengthen  in  his  mind,  can 
be  given  than  that  with  which  he  closes  his  book : 


SUMMARY  OF  PATRISTIC   TESTIMONY.  659 

"I  have  now  gone  through  every  writer  who  in  his  extant 
works  speaks  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  from  the  time  when  St. 
John  the  Evangelist  w^as  translated  to  his  Lord,  to  the  dates 
of  the  Fourth  General  Council,  A.  D.  451,  a  period  of  three 
centuries  and  a  half.  I  have  suppressed  nothing ;  I  have  not 
knowingly  omitted  anything;  I  have  given  every  passage,  as 
far  as  in  me  lay,  with  so  much  of  the  context  as  was  necessary 
for  the  clear  exhibition  of  its  meaning.  Of  course,  in  writers 
of  whom  we  have  such  large  remains  as  St.  Augustine  and  St. 
Chrysostom,  or  in  some  with  whom  I  am  less  fa-  g„„,„,,^^y  ^^ 
miliar,  T  may  have  overlooked  particular  passages.  Patnstic  Tesn- 
Yet  the  extracts  are  already  so  large,  so  clear,  and  ^J^"^  '-yDr.Pu- 
so  certain,  that  any  additional  evidence  could  only 
have  coincided  with  what  has  been  already  produced.  Alber- 
tinus  did  his  utmost  on  the  Calvinistic  side.  His  strength  lies 
in  his  arguments  against  a  physical  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation ;  his  weakness,  in  the  paradox  which  he  strangely 
maintains,  that  the  Fathers  did  not  believe  a  real  Objective 
Presence.  In  so  doing,  he  treats  the  Fathers  as  others  of  his 
school  have  treated  Holy  Scripture  on  the  other  Sacrament. 
When  his  school  would  disparage  the  doctrine  of  Baptism, 
they  select  passages  from  Holy  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  not 
speaking  of  that  Sacrament.  In  like  way  Albertinus  gains  the 
appearance  of  citing  the  Fathers  on  the  orthodox  side  (as  he 
calls  it),  I.  e.,  the  disbelief  of  the  Real  Presence,  by  quoting 
them  when  they  are  not  speaking  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but, 
e.  g.,  of  the  Presence  of  our  Lord's  Human  :N'ature  in  Heaven, 
or  the  absence  of  His  Visible  Presence  upon  earth  ;  of  the  natu- 
ral properties  of  bodies  ;  or  of  spiritual,  as  distinct  from  sacra- 
mental Communion,  or  of  the  Eucharistic  and  outward  Symbols, 
under  which  the  Sacramental  Presence  is  conveyed.  Supported, 
as  he  thinks,  by  these,  he  proceeds  to  explain  away,  as  he  best 
may,  the  clear  and  distinct  passages  which  had  hitherto  been 
alleged  from  the  Fathers,  in  proof  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence.  Yet  the  very  diligence  of  Albertinus  on  the  one 
side,  or  of  Roman  Catholic  controversialists  on  the  other, 
obviously  gives  the  more  security  that  nothing  can  have  been 
overlooked  which  could  seem  to  support  either  side. 


660  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

"  In  the  present  collection,  T  have  adduced  the  Fathers,  not  as 
original  authorities,  hut  as  witnesses  to  the  meaning  of  Holy 
Scripture.  I  have  alleged  them  on  the  old,  although  now,  on 
both  sides,  neglected  rule,  that  what  was  taught  '  everywhere, 
at  all  times,  by  all,'  must  have  been  taught  to  the  whole  Church 
by  the  inspired  Apostles  themselves.  The  Apostles  planted  ; 
they  watered  ;  they  appointed  others  to  take  their  ministr}^  to 
teach  as  they  had  themselves  taught  from  God.  A  universal 
suppression  of  the  truths  which  the  Apostles  taught  and  the 
unmarked  substitution  of  falsehood,  is  a  theory  whioh  contra- 
dicts human  reason,  no  less  than  it  does  our  Lord's  promise  to 
His  Church.  There  is  no  room  here  for  any  alleged  corruption. 
The  earliest  Fathers,  St.  Ignatius,  St.  elustin  Martyr,  St.  Ire- 
n^eus,  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  TertuUian,  or  St.  Ilippolytus, 
state  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  as  distinctly  as  any 
later  Father. 

"  And  now,  reader,  if  you  have  got  thus  far,  review  for  a 
moment  from  what  variety  of  minds,  as  of  countries,  this  evi- 
dence is  collected.  Minds  the  most  simple  and  the  most  philo- 
sophical ;  the  female  martyrs  of  Persia,  or  what  are  known  as 
the  philosophic  Fathers  ;  minds  wholly  practical,  as  TertuUian 
or  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Firmilian,  St.  Pacian,  or  St.  Julius  ;  or  those 
boldly  imaginative,  as  Origen  ;  or  poetic  minds,  as  St.  Ephrem, 
or  St.  Isaac,  or  St.  Paulinus  ;  Fathers  who  most  use  a  figurative 
and  typical  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  St.  Am- 
brose, or  such  as,  like  St.  Chrysostom,  from  their  practical 
character,  and  the  exigencies  of  the  churches  in  which  they 
preached,  confined  themselves  the  most  scrupulously  to  the  let- 
ter ;  mystical  writers,  as  St.  Macarius  ;  or  ascetics,  as  Mark,  the 
Hermit,  or  Apollos,  or  the  Abbot  Esaias ;  writers  in  other 
respects  opposed  to  each  other;  the  friends  of  Origen,  as  St. 
Didymus,  or  his  opponents,  as  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  and 
St.  Epiphanius ;  or  again,  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  or  Theo- 
doret  ;  heretics  or  defenders  of  the  faith,  as  Eusebius  and 
Thcodorus,  Ilereacleotes,  Arius,  or  St.  Athanasius ;  Apollina- 
rius  or  St.  Chrysostom,  who  wrote  against  him,  Nestorius  or 
St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  —  all  agree  in  one  consentient  exposi- 
tion of  our  Lord's  words,  'This  is  My  body,  this  is  My  blood.' 


SUMMARY  OF  PATRISTIC  TESTIMONY.  661 

Whence  this  harmony,  but  that  one  spirit  attuned  all  the  vari- 
ous minds  in  the  one  body  into  one ;  so  that  the  very  heretics 
were  slow  herein  to  depart  from  it? 

"  There  is  a  difference  ofttimes  in  the  setting,  so  to  speak,  of 
the  one  jewel,  truth.  We  may  meet  with  that  truth  where  we 
should  not  have  expected  it ;  some  may  even  be  deterred,  here 
and  there,  by  the  mystical  interpretations  of  Holy  Scripture, 
amid  which  they  find  it.  That  mystical  interpretation  is  no 
matter  of  faith.  But  a  mode  of  interpretation  which  presup- 
poses any  object  of  belief  to  be  alluded  to,  when  scarce  any- 
thing is  mentioned  which  may  recall  it  to  the  mind,  shows  at 
least  how  deeply  that  belief  is  stamped  upon  the  soul.  It  is  a 
common  saying,  how  '  Bishop  Home  found  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  everywhere  in  the  Psalms,  Grotius  nowhere.'  Cer- 
tainly our  Lord  must  have  been  much  in  Bishop  Home's  heart, 
that  everything  in  the  Psalms  spoke  to  his  soul  of  Him.  So 
much  the  more,  then,  must  our  Lord's  gift  of  His  body  and 
blood  have  been  in  the  hearts  of  the  early  Fathers,  that  words 
which  would  not  suggest  the  thought  of  them  to  others  spoke 
it  to  them. 

"  But  however  different  the  occasions  may  be  upon  w^hich  the 
truth  is  sp9ken  of,  in  whatever  variety  of  ways  it  may  be  men- 
tioned, the  truth  itself  is  one  and  the  same  —  one  uniform, 
simple,  consentient  truth  ;  that  what  is  consecrated  upon  the 
altars  for  us  to  receive,  what,  under  the  outward  elements  is 
there  present  for  us  to  receive,  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ; 
by  receiving  which  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper  do  verily 
and  indeed  take  and  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  by 
presuming  to  approach  which,  the  wicked  {L  e.  those  who  with 
impenitent  hearts  wilfully  purpose  to  persevere  in  deadly  sin, 
and  yet  venture  to  '  take  the  sacrament  ')  become  guilty  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  ;  i.  e.  become  guilty  of  a  guilt 
like  theirs  who  laid  hands  on  His  divine  person  while  yet  in 
the  flesh  among  us,  or  w^ho  shed  His  all-holy  blood. 

"  Kow,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  value  Ante-Nicene  Testi- 
monies to  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  ;  we  are  struck  when  St. 
Cyprian  (while  deciding  as  to  the  baptism  of  infants  on  the 
eighth  day)  lays  down  the  doctrine  of  the   transmission  of 


662  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

original  sin  as  clearly  as  St.  Augustine  amid  the  Pelagian  con 
troversy. 

"  Yet  the  principle  of  these  questions  is  one  and  the  same. 
The  argument  is  valid  for  all  or  for  none.  Either  it  is  of  nc 
use  to  show  that  Christians,  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  did 
uniformly  believe  in  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  as  the  Church 
has  since,  or  it  is  a  confirmation  of  the  faith,  that  they  did 
receive  unhesitatingly  in  their  literal  sense  our  blessed  Lord's 
words:  '  This  is  My  body.' 

"  This  argument,  from  the  consent  of  those  who  had  handed 
dow^n  the  truth  before  them,  was  employed  as  soon  as  there 
were  authorities  which  could  be  alleged.  So  rooted  was  the 
persuasion  that  certain  truth  must  have  been  known  to  those 
who  received  the  faith  from  the  first,  that  even  heretics  resorted 
to  the  argument,  and  garbled  and  misrepresented  the  Fathers 
before  them,  in  order  to  bring  them  to  some  seeming  agree- 
ment with  themselves.  The  argument  was  used  by  minds  in 
other  respects  of  a  different  mould.  Theodoret  and  St.  Leo 
appended  to  works  on  controversial  points  of  faith  citations 
from  the  Fathers  before  them.  St.  Auo-ustine  vindicated  as^ainst 
Pelagius,  and  St.  Athanasius  against  Arius,  authorities  whi'^'h 
they  had  misrepresented.  Even  the  Fathers,  assembled  from 
the  whole  world  in  general  councils,  have,  in  proof  of  their 
decisions,  wherein  all  were  agreed,  alleged  the  authorities  of 
yet  older  Fathers,  w^ho  were  known  in  previous  ages  to  have 
handed  down  the  Apostolic  truth. 

"  Yes,  along  the  whole  course  of  time,  throughout  the  whole 
circuit  of  the  Christian  world,  from  east  to  west,  from  north  to 
south,  there  floated  up  to  Christ  our  Lord  one  harmony  of 
praise.  Unbroken  as  yet  lived  on  the  miracle  of  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  from  on  high  swept  over  the 
discordant  strinors  of  human  tono^ues  and  thou£:hts,  of  hearts 
and  creeds,  and  blended  all  their  varying  notes  into  one  holy 
unison  of  truth.  From  Syria  and  Palestine  and  Armenia, 
from  Asia  Minor  and  Greece,  from  Thrace  and  Italy,  from 
Gaul  and  Spain,  from  Africa  Proper  and  Egypt  and  Arabia, 
and  the  Isles  of  the  Sea,  wherever  any  Apostle  had  taught, 
wherever  any  martyr  had  sealed  with  his  blood  the  testimony 


SUMMARY  OF  PATRISTIC  TESTIMONY.  663 

of  Jesus,  from  the  polished  cities  or  the  anchorites  of  the  desert, 
one  Eucharistic  voice  ascended  :  '  Righteous  art  Thou,  0  Lord, 
and  all  Thy  words  are  truth.'  Thou  hast  said,  'This  is  My 
hody,  this  is  My  hlood.'  Hast  Thou  said,  and  shalt  not  Thou 
do  it?     As  Thou  hast  said,  so  we  believe. 

"  Truly,  0  Lord, '  Thy  holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world 
doth  acknowledge  Thee.'" 

But  not  alone  from  the  hand  of  one  who,  though  in  a  non- 
Lutheran  Church,  has  become  Lutheran  on  this  point,  have 
we  testimony  as  to  the  identity  of  our  faith  with  the  faith  of 
the  early  Church  of  the  Fathers.  We  have  the  same  testimony 
from  others  within  the  Reformed  Church,  whose  concessions  are 
the  more  striking  because  those  who  make  them  still  refuse  to 
accept  the  Lutheran  faith.  On  this  point,  one  citation  may  suf- 
fice. It  is  from  Peter  Bayle,*  the  unrivalled  general  scholar  of 
his  a^e.     He   says :  "  There  are  Protestants  who, 

^  V,  .     .  r>     ^       -r         t  Peter  Bayle. 

without  holding  the  opinions  of  the  Lutherans,  are, 
nevertheless,  convinced  that,  in  forming  hypotheses  (to  harmo- 
nize the  statements  of  the  Fathers  on  the  Eucharist),  the  view  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  is  preferable  to  all  others  in  furnishing 
a  reason  for. the  phrases  of  antiquity.  For,  as  the  expressions 
in  regard  to  Jesus  Christ  which  seem  most  directly  in  conflict 
with  each  other  are  best  harmonized  —  so  that  not  even  a 
shadow  of  contradiction  remains,  by  the  supposition  that  he  is 
both  God  and  man  in  unity  of  person  — in  the  same  way  all  the 
terms,  difl^cult,  inflated,  hyperbolic,  simple,  and  direct,  which 
the  Fathers  used  in  speaking  of  the  Holy  Sacrament,  can  be 
easily  harmonized  on  the  supposition  that,  in  the  Supper,  is 
present  at  once  both  the  humanity  of  Christ  and  the  substance 
of  the  bread." 

*Nouv.  de  la  Rep.  des  Lettres,  1687,  Febr.     Art.  II.,  129-131. 


XIII. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  CONSIDERED 
IN  ITS  ANTITHESIS. 

(AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.    ART.  X.) 


The  Antithesis. 


TT7E  have,  in  our  previous  dissertation,  discussed  the  thetical 
'  »    part  of  the  Tenth  Article,  and  now  reach  the  closing  words, 

in  which,  very  hriefly  stated,  we  have  the  antithesis. 

It  is  in  these  words :  jirst^  in  the  Latin,  "  et  impro- 
bant  secus  docentes,"  "  and  they  disapprove  of  those  who  teach 
otherwise;"  second^m  the  German,  "derhalben  wird  auch  die 
gegenlehr  verworfen,"  "  therefore  also  the  opposite  doctrine  is 
rejected."  In  the  Latin,  the  errorists  are  spoken  of;  in  the 
German,  the  error.  The  Latin  was  designed  more  especially 
for  the  learned  classes,  the  German  w^as  meant  for  the  people, 
and  is  therefore  more  cautious  even  than  the  Latin  against 
phraseology,  which  might  be  misconstrued  as  a  warrant  for 
personal  animosity.  Our  confessors  carefully  avoided  all  ap- 
peals to  the  passions  of  men.  Everything  harsh  and  revolu- 
tionary was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Conservative  Reforma- 
tion, which  is  wholly  distinct  from  that  of  radicalism  and 
revolution.  This  conservative  spirit  prompts  the  softness  of 
the  language  toward  persons :  "  improbant,"  they  "  are  disap- 
proved of;"  while  it  bears,  in  all  its  force,  the  decisiveness 
toward  error;  zY 'Ms  rejected."  The  errorists,  moreover,  are 
regarded  as  errorists,  not  as  individuals.  We  may  love,  es- 
teem, cherish,  see  their  virtues,  stand  in  any  relation  of  amity, 
which  does  not  imply  approval  of  error,  or  connivance  at  it ; 
but  in  so  far  as  errorists  are  "  secus  docentes,"  teaching  other- 


's 

664 


WHO  ARE  MEANT  IN  THE  ANTITHESIS?         665 

wise  than  the  truth,  we  disapprove  of  them,  "  improbamus." 
So  far  as  their  doctrine  is  "gegenlehr,"  —  counter  to  the 
truth,  —  it  is  rejected  (verworfen).  It  has  been  asked  why  the 
"  damnant,"  or  harsher  condemnatory  word,  is  used  ..i,„,,robant" 
in  the  antitheses  to  the  other  Articles,  and  the  seem-  -"''>'  "''''''• 
ingly  milder  "  improbant  "  is  used  here?  The  answer  to  this 
is  that  the  heresies  condemned  are  more  directly  in  conflict 
with  the  general  faith  confessed  by  the  whole  Catholic  or  Uni- 
versal Church  in  the  Oecumenical  Creeds,  and  that  the  persons 
specially  had  in  view  in  this  "  improbant,"  professed  to  hold 
with  our  confessors  on  every  other  point  than  that  of  the  Sup- 
per, and  some  of  them,  as  the  Tetrapolitans,  declared  that  even 
on  this  point  the  differences  were  more  verbal  than  real.  There- 
fore our  confessors,  in  the  exercise  of  that  charity  which 
"  hopeth  al^  things,"  and  to  avoid  closing  the  door  upon  all 
prospect  of  bringing  those  who  professed  to  be  so  near  them  to 
perfect  accord,  used  the  mildest  term  consistent  with  truth  — 
a  term  which,  however,  was  none  the  less  strong  in  the  thing, 
because  of  its  gentleness  in  the  form. 

The  question  now  arises,  who  are  they  that  are  here  alluded 
to,  and  why  are  they  disapproved  of,  and  their  doc-     ,^, 

'  *'  ./  jTi  '  Who  are  meant 

trine  rejected?  We  might  make  various  classifica-  '"  the  Antith- 
tions  of  them.  One  of  the  most  natural  is  derived 
from  the  various  parts  of  the  Divine  testimony  against  which 
their  error  is  arrayed.  And  here  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  antithesis  is,  in  its  logical  sequence,  prospective  as  w^ell  as 
retrospective.  It  involves  in  its  rejection  all  future  errors 
against  the  truth  confessed,  as  well  as  errors  then  past  or  then 
present.  If  a  new  form  of  error  were  to  arise  to-day  in  con- 
flict with  the  testimony  of  the  Confession,  it  is  disapproved  of 
by  that  anticipation  with  which  truth,  in  its  simple  unity, 
reaches  the  Protean  forms  of  errors.  Kew  heresies  are,  for  the 
most  part,  but  the  shifting  of  masks.  The  errors  classified 
after  the  plan  which  we  suggest  may  be  arranged  under  three 
generic  heads :  The  errors,  jirst^  of  those  who  are  arrayed 
against  the  Scripture  testimony  as  to  the  outward  element,  to 
wit,  the  Romish  and  Greek  Churches,  v/hich,  by  their  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,  deny  the  presence  of  true  bread  and  true 


eQQ  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Second,  of  those  who  deny  the 
Scripture  testimony  in  regard  to  the  internal  or  heavenly  ele- 
ment, the  Zwinglians,  Calvinists,  Socinians,  and  Rationalists, 
who  deny  the  objective  presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  in  his  Supper.  Third,  of  those  who  deny  both, 
who,  combining,  as  it  were,  the  two  erroneous  extremes,  con- 
tend that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  there  is  neither  bread  nor  body 
— wine  nor  blood — and  maintain  that  the  Supper  is  not  an 
objective,  permanent  institution,  but  a  purely  ideal,  spiritual 
thing.     Such  are  the  Quakers,  and  certain  schools  of  mystics. 

The  long  array  of  what  claims  to  be  argument  in  behalf  of 
the  various  mistaken  views  which  are  rejected  in  the  Antithe- 
sis to  the  Tenth  Article  may  be  classified  under  these  heads: 
Arguments  from  a  false  grammar ;  a  false  lexicography ;  a 
false  rhetoric ;  a  false  philosophy ;  a  false  dogmatic ;  a  ftilse 
construction  of  history  ;  a  false  presumption  as  to  the  effect  of 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  on  the  Christian  life. 

In  regard  to  these  various  genera  of  error,  and  the  argu- 
ments for  them,  some  of  the  species  have  been  abandoned  — 
some  have  been  already  sufficiently  noticed  in  the  thetical 
treatment  of  the  doctrine — -some  are  unworthy  of  notice. 
We  may,  therefore,  confine  ourselves  to  the  form  of  error 
in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  which  we  are,  practically, 
most  frequently  called  to  meet.  It  is  not  likely  that  we  will 
meet  a  Carlstadtian,  who  will  maintain  that  the  key  to  the 
words  is  that  Christ  pointed  to  His  body,  when  He  said, 
"  This  is  My  body ; "  or  an  "  CEcolampadian,"  who  will  say 
that  the  word  "body  ^'  is  metaphorical;  or  a  "  Schwenkfeld- 
ian,"  who  will  argue  that  the  subject  is  predicate,  the  predi- 
cate subject,  and  that  the  words  are  to  be  inverted,  "  My  body 
is  this."  The  modern  argument  against  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  rests  ordinarily  on  two  exegetical  assump- 
tions, both  of  which  have  the  common  feature  that  whereas 
the  truth  rests  on  what  Christ  actually  said,  in  its  direct  sense, 
these  assume  that  the  interpreter  is  justified  in  adding  to  our 
Saviour's  words,  and  in  modifying  their  natural  force. 

Two  chief  centres  of  the  most  recent  controversy,  as  to  the 
exegesis   of  the  words   of  the   institution,  are  "  touto "  and 


"  TO  UTO''  —  ''  THIS."  607 

"  esti."     Does  "  touto  "  mean  "  this  bread  "  ?  does  "  esti "  mean 
"  signifies,  is  a  symbol  of  "  ? 

Of  "  touto," — ''  this,'' — Capellus,  a  Reformed  divine,  says, "  the 
entire  controversy  hino;es  on  the  meanins;  of 'this.'" 

T  1..1  .ir.«  "Touto"— "This." 

In  regard  to  the  proper  grammatical  force  of  "  tou- 
to," the  truth  seems  to  be  very  simple.     The   Saviour   break- 
ing bread  and  giving  it  to  His  disciples,  and  saying,  ''  Take, 
eat,"  commenced  vv^ith  the  word  "  touto,"  a  proposition  v^^hich 
might,  in  conformity  with  the  truth,  have  ended  either  with  the 
word  "artos,"  or,  as  it  actually  did,  with  the  word  "soma." 
He  might,  looking  at  the  thing  given  simply  on  its  natural 
side,  have  said,  "This  is  bread,"  or  might  have  said,  as  He 
actually  did  say,  contemplating  it  on   its   supernatural  side, 
"  This  is  My  body."     Hence,  apart  from  all  other  reasons,  it  is 
evident  that  neither  the  word  "  bread,"  nor  the  word  "  body," 
is  to  be  supplied  after  "  touto,"  as  it  is  inconceivable  that  our 
Lord  should  have  uttered  an  identical  proposition  —  a  proposi- 
tion whose  two  parts  are  tautological  repetitions  of  each  other, 
or  would  be  self-involved.     In  the  first  case  the  proposition 
would  be  "  This  bread  is  bread  ; "  in  the  other  it  would  be 
"  This  body  is  My  body."     Hence,  if  there   were   no   other 
reason  whatever  for  the  interpretation,  it  is  evident  that  the 
"  touto  "  is  used  here,  as  it  is  used  in  all  phrases  fairly  paral- 
lel with  this  —  indefinitely  indicating  simply  "this  thing,"  — 
"  this,"  whose  definite  character  is  to  be  stated  in  the  words 
which   follow.     The   grammatical    question   in   hand  here   is 
really   this,  and   no   more,    whether   the   demonstrative   pro- 
noun "  touto,"  in  the  neuter  gender,  standing  where  it  does, 
and  used  as  it  is,  may  be  considered  as  qualifying  "  artos," 
"  bread,"    in    the    masculine    understood ;    in    other    words, 
whether  we  may  read  m  "  artos  "  after  "  touto,"  so  as  to  make 
the  sense  "  This  bread  is  My  body  "  ?     In  advance  of  the  direct 
grammatical  argument,  we  might  settle  the  question  by  asking 
of  the  reasoner  to  state  his  argument  in  Greek.     IS'ow,  stating 
it  in  Greek,  he  will  write  what  no  educated  Greek  ever  wrote  — 
"  Touto  artos."     What  is  not  logical  in  Greek  is   not  so  in 
English,     ^ow,  then,  we  afiirm,/r5^,  that  it  is  the  rule  that  a 
pronoun  shall  agree  with  its  antecedent,  or  the  noun  it  quali 


668  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Jies^  in  gender ;  second^  that  in  the  seeming  exceptions  to  this 
rule,  in  which  the  demonstrative  pronoun  is  of  a  different  gen- 
der from  the  thing  alluded  to,  that  exception  arises  from  the 
fact  that  the  thing  is  thought  of  as  a  thing,  and  not  in  the 
grammatical  force  of  its  name ;  third,  that  in  such  cases,  con- 
sequently, we  may  not  supplj'  the  grammatical  name  of  the 
thing,  but  must  conceive  of  it  indefinitely  as  a  thing,  so  that 
in  no  case  whatever  is  it  lawful  to  read  in  after  a  demonstra- 
tive, a  noun  of  a  different  gender  from  its  own.  The  general 
rule,  therefore,  stands  in  this  case,  and  decides  it.  The  rule 
specifically  applied  here  is,  that  a  demonstrative  pronoun 
qualifying  a  noun  agrees  with  that  noun  in  gender.  ]N'ow 
"  touto  "  does  not  agree  in  gender  with  "  artos,"  and  "  artos  *' 
may,  therefore,  not  be  supplied. 

Against  the  critic  who  maintains  that  we  may  reach  gram- 
matically  the  construction  :  "  This  bread  is,"  some  of  the  points 
which  we  consider  decisive  in  the  case  are  here :  1.  The  word 
artos  (bread)  had  not  been  used  by  our  Lord  at  all.  He  had 
simply  said:  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body."  The  word  artos 
the  critic  gets  from  Matthew's  narrative.  Ko  such  word  ias  he 
reads  in  was  used  antecedently  to  our  Saviour's  declaration. 
He  says  that,  as  our  Saviour  uttered  the  words :  "  This  is  My 
body,"  the  "  this  "  refers  to  the  word  artos.  Our  reply  in  brief 
is,  there  was  no  word  artos  to  refer  to.  That  word  is  Matthew's 
word,  written  long  after  our  Lord's  ascensioij.  The  artos  ex- 
pressed cannot  be  the  antecedent  to  our  Saviour's  touto,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  there  was  no  artos  expressed. 

2.  Our  second  point  is  this,  that  as  there  is  no  precedent 
artos  standing  in  any  possible  grammatical  relation  to  the  touto, 
if  we  get  the  artos  in  at  all,  we  must  get  it  in  by  supplying  it 
by  conjecture  from  the  mind  of  the  speaker,  and  adding  it 
after  the  touto,  thu^-.  touto  artos,  2i  neuter  pronoun  qualifying 
a  masculine  noun. 

3.  Our  third  point  is,  that  the  pronoun  never  varies  from 
the  gender  of  the  noun  it  qualifies,  or  agrees  with.  Our  infer- 
ence, therefore,  is,  that  as  on  the  critic's  theory,  touto,  a  neuter 
pronoun,  must  qualify  artos,  a  masculine  noun,  that  theory  is 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  EXAMPLES.  669 

false,  and  is  utterly  overthrown  by  the  rule  that  a  pronoun 
shall  agree  with  its  antecedent  in  gender. 

To  every  text  cited  or  referred  to  by  such  a  critic,  one  and 
the  same  answer  will  apply.  In  not  a  solitary  one  does  the  pro- 
noun differ  in  gender  from  the  noun  it  qualijies,  or  y^'hich  must 
be  supplied  to  make  the  desired  sense.  In  not  a  solitary  case 
does  a  demonstrative  pronoun  difter  in  gender  from  the  noun 
which  must  be  supplied  in  order  to  make  a  required  rendering. 
INot  one  instance  can  be  found  from  Genesis  to  Malachi,  in  the 
Septuagint,  or  from  Matthew  to  Revelation,  in  the  IN'ew  Tes- 
tament, in  which  such  a  conjunction  must  be  made  as  that  of 
touto  neuter  with  artos  masculine^  in  order  to  reach  the  full 
sense  of  a  passage. 

Many  of  the  supposed  examples,  in  addition  to  the  general 
lack  of  adaptation  to  their  end,  have  a  peculiar  The  scriptmai 
infelicity.  One  is  Galat.  iv.  24 :  "  Which  things  Examples. 
are  an  allegory  ;  for  these  are  the  two  covenants."  "  These," 
it  is  said,  is  feminine,  corresponding  in  gender  with  covenants, 
though  the  antecedent  is  "which  things."  "  Which  things," 
we  reply,  is  neuter,  it  is  true,  but  "  which  things  "  is  a  pro- 
noun, and  not  the  antecedent  of  the  feminine  "these."  IN'or 
has  "  covenants  "  anything  to  do  with  the  gender  of  "  these." 
The  true  antecedents  are  "bondwoman"  and  "freewoman," 
V.  22,  23,  and  the  meaning  is,  "  these  women  "  are  the  two 
covenants.  So  clear  is  this,  as  the  whole  connection  will  show, 
that  Luther,  in  the  first  twelve  editions  of  his  ISTew  Testament, 
and  following  him  Tyndale  and  Coverdale,  translate :  "  these 
women  ;  "  the  Genevan  :  "  these  mothers,"  and  so  the  best  in- 
terpreters of  all  schools,  as  Henry,  De  Wette,  Fausset,  is'oyes. 
But  if  the  critic  were  right  in  his  exegesis,  the  text  would  not 
help  him,  for  he  could  not  read  in  "things,"  neuter,  after  "autai," 
feminine,  so  as  to  translate  "  these  which  things  "  aatai  atena. 

The  second  example  given  is  Rev.  xx.  14:  "This  is  the 
second  death."  "  '  This  '  is  masculine,  and  agrees  with  '  death,' 
though  it  really  refers  to  the  antecedent  clause,  which  is,  of  course, 
neuter  1"  If  the  critic  has  a  Greek  Testament  with  a  reliable 
text,  he  will  find  that  autos  does  agree  with  thanatos,  and  that 
the  text  literally  runs :  This  death  is  the  second.     Even  with 


670  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

the  received  text,  a  good  sense  is :  This  (death)  is  the  secoud 
death.  How,  too,  can  he  imagine,  even  on  his  ground,  that  a 
"  this  "  which  refers  to  a  previous  sentence  is  parallel  to  a 
"  this  "  which  has  no  sentence  or  word  on  which  it  grammati- 
cally depends.     Where  is  the  parallel  to  touto  artos? 

In  Matt.  xxvi.  28  :  "  This  is  My  Wood  of  the  Kew  Testament  " 
is  not  parallel ;  for  it  is  not  independent,  and  is  connected  with 
what  precedes  hy  the  gar  '-'•for:^^  Drink  of  it^for  this  is  My 
blood.  The  pronoun  autou  (hereof,  of  it,  of  this)  is  connected 
with  what  follows:  Drink  of  it^for  this  is  My  bloody  and  more- 
over does  agree  in  gender  with  the  noun  poterion  (cup',  if  a  word 
is  to  be  supplied,  the  word  which  is  actually  supplied  in  Luke 
xxii.  23 :  This  cup  is.  I^ow,  the  critic  will  not  deny  that  in 
Luke  xxii.  20,  the  gender  of  touto  is  determined  by  poterion 
(cup),  not  by  aima  (blood),  and  if  it  is  so  there,  so  must  it  be 
in  Matt.  xxvi.  27,  where  we  know,  on  divine  authority,  that 
if  we  supply  a  noun  at  all,  poterion  is  to  be  supplied,  and  where 
consequently  the  gender  of  touto  would  be  determined,  not  by 
the  noun  in  the  predicate,  but  by  the  noun  understood.  If, 
then,  artos  were  the  noun  understood  here,  as  the  critic  sup- 
poses, the  very  principle  of  the  text  to  which  he  appeals  is 
decisive  that  the  pronoun  should  be  aatos^  masculine,  not  touto^ 
neuter.  If  St.  Luke  had  supplied  a  noun  understood,  as  he 
does  in  the  case  of  poterion^  he  would,  according  to  the  critic's 
principles,  have  written  touto  artos^  which  even  he  will  not  con- 
tend would  be  Greek.  Yet,  into  this  actually  runs  what  he  is 
now  contending  for,  and  what  he  has  to  prove,  to  wit,  that 
the  demonstrative  pronoun  requiring  a.  noun  to  be  supplied  does 
not  agree  in  gender  with  that  noun.  J^ot  a  solitary  example 
adduced  even  contemplates  the  disproof  of  this  position.  Yet 
this  is  the  very  thing  which  is  to  be  disproved. 

A  true  parallel  in  the  main  matter  is  found  in  1  Cor.  x.  28: 
"  If  any  of  those  that  believe  not  bid  you  to  a  feast,  .  .  if  any 
man  say  unto  you :  This  is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  (more 
literally.  This  is  idol-sacrifice,  '  a  thing  offered  to  a  god,')  eat 
not."  Here  is  a  real  as  well  as  a  verbal  example ;  for  it  speaks 
of  the  very  eating  of  which  St.  Paul  makes  a  contrasting  paral- 
lel with  the  "  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ."     What  does 


LUTHERAN  THEOLOGIANS.  671 

**  this  "  mean  here  ?  N'ot  the  idol-sacrifiee,  for  that  would  make 
an  identical  proposition  :  This  idol  -  sacrifice  is  idol -sacrifice. 
But  there  is  no  noun  whatever  in  the  context  to  which  touto 
can  refer  ;  the  force  of  "  this  "  is,  therefore :  This  which  you 
are  about  to  eat  is  idol-sacrifice.  If  a  translator,  on  the  ground 
that  he  knew  Wvdi  flesh  was  used  for  sacrifice,  should  insist  on 
rendering,  or  on  building  on  the  rendering:  This  flesh  is  idol- 
sacrifice,  it  would  be  decisive  against  him  that  touto  is  neuter^ 
and  sarx  (flesh)  is  feminine.  We  need  not  multiply  examples. 
Our  principle  is  so  simple  and  easy  of  application,  that  even 
the  English  reader  can  run  it  out  for  himself  in  these  and  other 
passages.  The  testimony  is  unvarying,  complete,  and  over- 
whelming, that  in  every  case  really  parallel  with  the  present 
the  view  we  take  is  correct,  which  is,  that  when  Jesus  says, 
''  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body,"  He  means.  This  which  I  tell 
you  to  Take,  eat,  is  My  body. 

The  correct  view  in  regard  to  touto^  to  wit,  that  it  cannot  qual- 
ify or  refer  grammaticcdii/  to  mios,  has  been  maintained  by  a  large 
majority  of  the  best  scholars  in  all  parts  of  the  religious  world. 

The  accepted  view  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  is  that  touto 
cannot  refer  grammatically  to  artos.  This  is  espe-  Lutheran  The- 
cially  illustrated  among  those  we  have  examined  "lo-ians. 
by  Gerhard,  Quenstedt,  Calovius,  Carpzov,  Oliarius,  Scherzer, 
Bengel,  and  the  best  both  of  our  earlier  and  later  commenta- 
tors. Gerhard,  for  example,  says,  in  his  Harmonia :  "The 
whole  argument  for  transubstantiation  from  the  words  of  the 
institution  rests  upon  the  hypothesis  that  by  the  pronoun  '  this ' 
is  denoted  the  bread.  But  the  'this,'  used  deictically,  has 
not  reference  to  the  bread  alone,  but  to  the  whole  complex. 
If  the  bread  alone  were  meant,  what  sort  of  a  grammatical 
construction  would  result?  —  'Touto  artos.'  When  Paul, 
1  Cor.  X.  16,  makes  bread  the  subject,  then  the  predicate  is  not 
'  body  of  Christ,'  but  '  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ ; ' 
when  Luke  places  the  '  cup '  as  the  subject,  the  predicate  is 
not  '  blood  of  Christ,'  but  the  '  Kew  Testament '  in  His  blood. 
The  pronoun  '  this '  is  therefore  used,  not  adjectively,  but 
substantively,  so  that  there  is  an  exhibitive  proposition." 

The  true  view  is  accepted  even  by  some  of  the  ripest  Roman 


872  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Catholic  scholars,  much  as  the  concession  embarrasses  the  argu 
ment  for  transubstantiation.  Maldonatus,  whose  Commentary 
on  Matthew  is  regarded  by  Romanists  as  the  very  best  ever 
written  on  that  Gospel,  is  especially  worthy  of  examination  on 
uomaii  catho-  this  point.  When  Romish  testimony  agrees  with 
lie  Kxpo.itors.      ^YiQ  Protestant,  it  has  special  value. 

It  is  the  view  of  many  of  the  most  thoughtful  and  reliable 
Protestants  who  are  not  Lutherans,  and  who  have  a  strong 
dogmatic  temptation  to  overcome,  in  order  to  be  faithful  to 
the  truth.  We  will  give  a  few  of  these,  as  they  come  from 
sources  where  we  might  least  expect  them. 

Dr.  Henry  Hammond,  a  classic  among  the  older  commenta- 
tors of  the  Church  of  England,  says:  "It  must  here  be  ob- 
served that  the  word  touto.,  this^  is  not  the  relative  to  artos^ 
bread,  but  of  the  neuter,  whereas  that  is  of  the  masculine,  and 
consequently  it  is  not  here  said,  This  bread  is  My  body." 

The  best  interpreters  of  the  Calvinistic  Unionistic  School 
have  abandoned  the  theory  that  "  touto  "  can  refer  grammati- 
cally to  "artos." 

Dr.  John  J.  Owen  in  his  Xotes  on   Matthew  (iS'ew  York, 
1857),  on  this  point,  says  :  "  The  form  of  words  in 
the  original  does  not  refer  so  much  to  the  bread, 
which  is  not  mentioned,  as  to  the  thing. '' 

Lange,  the  latest  commentator  of  eminence  on  Matthew, 
confessedly  one  of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  age,  but  strongly 
anti-Lutheran,  says:  "  This  is  My  body.  This,  in  the  neuter, 
therefore  not  directly  o  aproc:  (the  bread)." 

Stier,  who  was  Unionistic,  says,  in  regard  to  touto  :  "  If  omy- 
thing  he  certain  in  regard  to  this  matter,  it  is  the  sober  word  of 
Bengel,  which  is  faithful  to  the  simple  letter,  and  has,  therefore, 
become  classical, '  hoc  quod  vos  sumere  jubeo,'  this  w^hich  I  com- 
mand you  to  take."  With  this  Hengstenberg,  originally  from 
the  Reformed  side  in  the  Union,  concurs  with  what  Stier  calls 
an  "  almost  Lutheran  approval."  Stier  says  further  in  the 
note :  "  The  Lutheran  divines  maintain  this  as  the  force :  This 
which  I  command  you  to  eat.  They  are  right."  And  again, 
in  the  text :  "  There  is  good  reason  why  our  Lord  does  not  say 
this  bread.'" 


Reformed     Di- 
vines. 

'S 


IK  WHAT  SENSE   THIS  BREAD,  ETC.  673 

Alford  :  "  Tlie  form  of  expression  is  important,  not  being 
*  ocuTof  0  apToc;,'  not  the  bread,  but  the  thing  itself."  Dr.  Sciiaff 
quotes  these  words  of  Alford  as  confirming  the  view  of  Lange, 
and  thus  endorses  the  judgment  of  these  two  interpreters.  We 
may,  therefore,  say  that  the  theory  that  "  this,''  the  confessed 
subject  in  the  sacramental  proposition,  means  grammatically 
''this  bread,^'  is  a  theory  abandoned  by  the  best  scholars  of  the 
school  which  is  most  interested  in  maintaining  it. 

But  even  if  it  were  2:ranted  that  the  true  resolution  of  the 
grammatical  form  is  into  "  This  bread  is  My  body,"  j,,  ^^.,,^j  ^^^^^^ 
the  desired  inference,  that  the  meaning  is,  "  This  Tins  bread  is  the 
bread  is  a  symbol  of  My  body,"  is  as  remote  as  ever. 
For,  first,  if  Christ  had  said,  "  This  bread  is  My  body,"  He 
would  have  implied  that  no  other  bread  is  His  body :  but  as  a 
symbol  all  bread  is  equally  Christ's  body.  Second :  the  reason 
why  this  bread  is  His  body  must  lie  in  something  which  has 
taken  place,  since  there  was  simply  bread  upon  the  table  at  the 
Lord's  Supper.  It  must  be  something  which  has  taken  place, 
since  that  bread  was  in  the  mere  natural  sphere  of  all  bread. 
When  it  thus  lay,  it  was  not  true  of  it  that  it  was  Christ's  body 
any  more  than  all  other  bread  is.  Between  the  lying  of  that 
bread  on  the  table,  a  mere  thing  of  nature  in  all  its  relations, 
and  the  affirmation  "  This  is  My  body,"  six  things  had  oc- 
curred. 1.  jSe  "took  "  it,  the  incarnate  Almighty,  after  whose 
taking  (Matt.  xiv.  19)  five  loaves  and  two  fishes  had  satisfied 
the  hunger  of  five  thousand  men,  besides  w^omen  and  children, 
and  had  left  twelve  baskets  full  of  fragments.  He  "  took  "  it, 
after  whose  taking  (Matt.  xv.  36)  four  thousand  men,  besides 
women  and  children,  were  fed,  and  seven  baskets  of  fragments 
remained.  2.  He  '•'gave  thanks,''  as  He  had  done  in  the  stu- 
pendous miracle  of  creation  in  which  He  fed  the  thousands 
(Matt.  XV.  36).  3.  He  "  blessed  "  the  bread,  as  in  the  supernatu- 
ral feeding  (Matt.  xiv.  19),  and  in  virtue  of  that  word  of  om- 
nipotent benediction,  the  border  of  the  realm  of  nature  was 
passed,  and  all  that  followed  was  under  the  powers  and  condi- 
tions of  the  infinite  supernatural.  4.  He  ''  brake  it,"  as  He 
had  broken  the  mystic  loaves  and  fishes  (Matt.  xv.  36).  5. 
He  ''gave  it "  to  His  disciples,  as  He  had  given  the  loaves  and 

43 


674  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION 

fishes  to  His  disciples  for  the  multitude  (Matt.  xiv.  19  ;  xv.  36). 
6.  He  had  said,  "  Take,  eat,"  and  had  assigned  as  the  reason 
why  this  solemn  preparation  had  taken  place,  and  this  com- 
mand was  now  given  :  "  TIds  is  My  body."  If  "  this  "  means 
"  this  bread,"  it  means  not  that  bread  which  was  before  the  six 
acts,  but  this  bread,  which  is  eaten  after  the  six  acts ;  and  if  it 
be  called  the  bod}-  of  Christ  noic,  it  is  not  because  it  is  a  sym- 
bol of  the  body,  for  this  it  was  then.,  but  because  it  is  now  what 
St.  Paul  expressly  calls  it,  ''  the  communion,"  or  medium  of 
the  communication  of  Christ's  body.  Conceived  in  this  way 
the  word  bread  would  mean  the  complex  result  of  the  sacra- 
mental union,  the  sacramental  bread  in  its  supernatural  con- 
junction with  the  sacramental  body.  This  bread,  this  complex, 
is  not  symbol  but  reality.  It  is  literally  Christ's  true  body,  as 
it  is  literally  true  bread.  As  the  words,  "  This  man  is  God," 
applied  to  Christ,  means.  This  man  is  literally  God  personally, 
(in  virtue  of  the  personal  union),  yet  is  literally  man  naturally, 
Christ  is  true  man  and  true  God  ;  so  the  words.  This  bread  is 
Christ's  body,  mean.  This  bread  is  literally  Christ's  body  sac- 
ramentally,  (in  virtue  of  the  sacramental  union,)  yet  is  literally 
bread  naturally.  The  Eucharist  is  true  bread  and  true  body. 
Before  the  miraculous  blessing  of  the  five  loaves  and  the  fishes 
it  was  true,  7'hat  food  is  not  food  for  thousands  ;  after  the  bless- 
ing, it  was  true,  l^his  food  is  food  for  thousands :  before  the 
blessing  that  bread  was  not  the  body  of  Christ ;  after  the  bless- 
ing, This  bread  is  His  body. 

Hence  the  Ancient  Church  and  the  Lutheran  Church,  holding 
The    Ancient  ^^^  samc  faith,  have  not  hesitated  at  all  to  use  the 
Church.  expression,  "  This  bread,  or  the  sacramental  bread, 

is  Christ's  body,"  while  both  would  repudiate  as  error  the  idea 
that  bread,  as  bread,  can  be  called  Christ's  body.  The  fathers 
are  very  explicit  in  aflirming  that  it  is  not  bread,  as  bread,  of 
which  they  afiirm  that  it  is  Christ's  body,  but  that  bread 
whose  character  is  conditioned  by  the  six  sacramental  acts  of 
our  Lord.  Thus  Jerome*  :  "The  bread  ?r/?iV/i  oar  Lord  brake 
and,  gave  to  His  disciples  is  Mis  bod}/.'"  Gaudentiusf  :  "  When 
our  Lord  reached  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  to  His  disci- 

*  Epist.  ad  Hedebiam.  f  In  Exod.  Tract  2. 


THE  ANCIENT  CHURCH.  675 

pies,  He  said:  This  is  My  body."  Facundus*:  "Our  Lord 
called  the  bread  and  cup  which  had  been  blessed^  and  which  He 
delivered  to  His  disciples,  His  body  and  blood."  Maxentiusf: 
"  The  bread  ivhich  the  whole  Church  partakes  of  in  memory  of  the 
Lord's  passion  is  His  body."  Theodoret  :j: :  "  After  consecration, 
we  call  the  mystic  fruit  of  tlie  vine  the  Lord's  blood."  Ter- 
tuUian  §  :  "  Christ,  when  He  had  taken  bread,  and  distributed  it 
to  His  disciples,  made  it  His  body  by  saying,  '  This  is  My 
body.'"  Cyril  of  Jerusalem!:  ^'  When  the  invocation  is  made, 
the  bread  becomes  the  body  of  Christ  and  the  wine  His  blood." 
Gregory  ^yssen  T :  ^' At  first  W\e  bread  is  common  bread,  ^?^; 
after  the  mystery  has  consecrated  it,  it  is  both  called  and  becomes 
the  body  of  Christ."  Augustine  **  :  "  Not  all  bread,  but  only 
that  which  receives  the  blessing  of  Christ,  becomes  Christ's 
body."  The  author  of  the  Book  on  the  Sacraments,  imputed 
to  Ambrose  (L.  lY.  ch.  iv.) :  ''  Perhaps  thou  wilt  say.  My  bread 
(the  bread  of  which  I  speak)  is  ordinary  bread ;  but  though 
that  bread  is  (ordinary)  bread  before  the  sacramental  words,  yet, 
when  the  consecration  takes  place,  the  bread  becomes  the  body  of 
Christ.  .  .  How  can  that  which  is  bread  be  the  body  of  Christ  ? 
By  consecration.  By  whose  words  is  this  consecration?  By 
the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Whatever  else  may  have  gone 
before,  as  praise  to  God,  and  prayers,  yet  when  the  venerable 
sacrament  itself  is  to  be  consummated,  the  priest  no  longer 
uses  his  own  words,  but  uses  the  words  of  Christ.  Wherefore 
it  is  Christ's  word  by  which  the  sacrament  is  consummated. 
What  is  Christ's  word?  That  by  which  the  universe  was 
made  out  of  nothing.  .  .  It  was  not  the  body  of  Christ  before  con- 
secration, but  after  consecration  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  He 
hath  said,  and  it  is  done.  Wine  and  water  are  put  into  the 
cup ;  but  it  becomes  blood  by  the  consecration  of  the  heavenly 
word." 

The  Lutheran  Church,  holding  the  same  Eucharistic  faith 
with  the  Ancient  Church,  does  not  hesitate  to  employ  the 

*  In  Defens.  3.  Capit.  Lib.  IX.  c,  ult.  f  Dialog.  2.  c.  13. 

X  Dialog.  1.  gCatech.  Mystag.  2. 

11  Cont.  Marc.  L.  IV.  ch.  40.  \  Oral,  in  Christ.  Baptisma. 

**  Serm.  de  diversis.  87. 


676  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Rame  ^aiiguage  in  the  same  sense.  Luther  often  uses  the 
expression :  "  This  bread,  or  the  sacramental  bread,  is  the 
body  of  Christ."  He  does  this  with  respect  to  three  objects. 
First,  to  assert  the  reality  of  the  bread  over  against  the  error 
of  transubstantiation.  Second,  to  deny  the  exclusion  of  the 
sacramental  bread  from  the  complex  of  the 
Saviour's  meaning,  as  was  done  by  Carlstadt ;  and, 
third,  to  assert  the  character  of  the  bread  as  the  medium  of  a 
true  impartation  of  the  body  of  Christ,  involving  a  true  pres- 
ence of  that  body.  Thus  of  the  first  he  says  *  :  "  The  gospel 
calls  the  sacrament  bread.  Consequently^  the  bread  is  the  body 
of  Christ.  By  this  we  abide ;  it  is  sure  over  against  the  dreams 
of  the  sophists,  that  it  is  bread  which  it  (the  gospel)  calls 
bread."  He  is  not  speaking  of  touto  in  its  relation  to  artos^  or 
to  anything  bearing  upon  it  in  any  way.  Luther  is  arguing 
against  transubstantiation.  Over  against  the  theory  that  it  is 
the  accidents  of  bread  which  are  the  Sacrament,  on  its  earthly 
side,  he  says  that  bread  itself  is.  He  says:  "Consequently, 
that  is,  logically,  over  against  transubstantiation,  the  bread, 
not  its  accidents,  is  the  body  of  Christ."  While  Luther  and 
the  Lutheran  Church  deny  that  the  expression  "bread  is  the 
body  of  Christ  "  is  found  in  the  Bible,  they  admit  that  there  is 
a  sense  in  which  it  may  be  allowed  as  a  part  of  human  termi- 
nology, and,  where  the  Romanist  says  the  accidents  of  the 
bread,  and  not  bread  itself,  are  the  visible  part  of  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Christ,  Luther  replies:  J^o ;  the  bread,  true  bread, 
is  that  Sacrament ;  and  over  against  the  Romish  theory 
that  the  mere  species  of  bread,  and  not  its  substance,  is  the 
communion  of  Christ's  body,  Luther  maintains  that  true 
bread  is  that  communion,  or,  in  virtue  of  the  sacramental 
union,  that,  in  a  certain  sense,  it  is  (not  is  like)  the  body  of 
Christ.  On  the  second  point,  Luther  demonstrates  in  his  whole 
argument  against  Carlstadt  that  the  proposition  cannot  mean 
"This  body,  to  which  I  point,  is  My  body,  broken  for  you," 
but  "This  which  I  tell  you  to  take,  eat,  is  My  body."  This 
sacramental  complex,  in  a  word,  is  both  bread  and  body  ;  and, 
because  of  the  sacramental  union,  we  can  say,  This  bread  is 

*  Werkc.  Leipzig  Edi.  Vol.  XVIII.  p.  421. 


ord.     Ger- 
hard. 


FORMULA    OF  C 0 NC O RD— G E R HAR  D.  677 

Christ's  body.  Hence,  in  the  third  place,  Luther  makes  the 
point :  "  It  is  no  longer  mere  bread  of  the  oven,  but  bread  of 
flesh,  or  bread  of  body,  that  is,  a  bread  which  is  sacramentally 
one  with  the  body  of  Christ.  .  .  It  is  no  more  mere  wine  of  the 
vintage,  but  wine  of  blood,  that  is,  a  wine  which  has  come  to 
be  a  sacramental  unit  with  the  blood  of  Christ."* 

In  conformity  with  the  ancient  phraseology  the  Formula  of 
Concord  declares  :  "  The  bread  does  not  sio-nify  the     ,,         ,      , 

J?«/  formula    of 

absent  body  of  Christ,  and  the  wine  the  absent  c«"^ 
blood  of  Christ ;  but  by  means  of  (propter)  the  sac- 
ramental union,  the  bread  and  wine  are  truly  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ. "t  Gerhard  %  has  so  admirably  explained  the 
meaning  of  the  ecclesiastical  phrase  "  The  bread  is  the  body 
of  Christ,"  that  a  citation  from  him  will  render  any  other 
unnecessary.  "Although  the  proposition,  '  The  bread  is  the 
body  of  Christ,'  does  not  occur  in  so  many  words  in  the  Scrip- 
ture, we  do  not,  by  any  means,  disapprove  of  it,  inasmuch  as 
the  church-writers,  ancient  and  recent,  frequently  employ  it. 
From  the  words  of  Christ,  '  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body,'  and 
the  words  of  Paul,  '  The  bread  which  we  break  is  the  commu- 
nion of  the  body  of  Christ,'  we  are  to  estimate  its  meaning  and 
explain  it,  and  hence  it  is  usual  to  call  it  a  sacramental  proposi- 
tion. This  may  be  more  clearly  understood  by  noting  what 
follows.  In  all  regular  affirmative  predications,  it  is  required 
that  there  shall  be  a  mutual  agreement  and  coherence  between 
the  subject  and  the  predicate.  If  this  agreement  be  intrinsic 
and  essential,  the  predications  are  essential ;  if  it  be  extrinsic 
and  accidental,  the  predications  are  accidental.  From  the  rule 
in  logic,  that  one  thing  cannot  be  affirmed  literally  and  without 
type  to  be  another  thing  (disparatum  de  disparato  proprie 
adfirmate  non  posse  predicare),  the  adversaries  draw  the  infer- 
ence that  the  proposition  '  The  bread  is  the  body  of  Christ '  is 
figurative.  But  they  ought  to  know  that  besides  those  ordinary 
predications,  which  conform  to  the  rules  of  logic,  there  are  in 

*Werke.  Leipzig,  xix.  497:  "  Fleiscbes-brod  oder  Leibs-Brod  so  mit  dem 
Leibe  Christi  ein  Sacramentlich  Wesen  .  .  worden  ist  .  .  ein  Wein,  der  mit  dem 
Blut  Christi  in  ein  Sacramentlich  Wesen  kommen  ist." 

f  Epitome.  Art.  VII.  ii.  J  Loci.  Cotta.  x.  155.  240  seq. 


678  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

theology  predications  not  in  ordinary  use  (inusitati),  in  which, 
on  account  of  the  mystic  union,  one  thing  is  said,  without  a 
trope,  to  he  another  thing.  Such  propositions  are  of  two  kinds, 
personal  and  sacramental.  The  personal  are  those  in  which 
the  human  nature  is  predicated  of  the  divine  nature  of  the 
Logos^  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  divine  nature  of  the  Logos 
is  predicated  of  the  human  nature  assumed,  in  the  concrete^  to 
wit,  on  account  of  the  personal  union.  Sach  expressions  are 
these,  God  is  man,  Man  is  God,  the  Son  of  Mary  is  the  Son  of 
God.  Sacramental  propositions  are  those  in  which  the  heav- 
enly thing  is  predicated  of  the  earthly  element,  on  account  of 
the  sacramental  union,  such  as  these,  the  hread  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  Avine  is  the  blood  of  Christ.  As  in  the  abstract  the 
divine  nature  of  the  Logos  is  not  predicated  of  the  human,  nor 
the  human  of  the  divine,  but  only  in  the  concrete^  which  is  a 
manifest  proof  that  the  personal  union  is  the  cause  and  source 
of  these  predications  ;  so  also  it  is  not  predicated  of  the  bread, 
as  such,  but  only  in  its  sacramental  use,  that  it  is  the  body  of 
Christ;  and  hence  it  is  usual  to  add  to  the  subject,  and  say  the 
eucharistic  bread,  the  consecrated  bread,  the  bread  which  we 
break  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  this  again  is  a  manifest  proof 
that  the  sacramental  union  is  the  cause  and  source  of  the  latter 
predication.  If  the  adversaries  say  that  the  bread  must  be  the 
body  of  Christ  either  in  a  literal  or  ii  figurative  sense,  we  answer 
that  there  is  a  third  sense,  to  wit,  the  sacramental^  by  which  is 
meant  that  the  bread  is  the  collating  organ ^  the  exhibitive  sym- 
bol and  vehicle,  by  which  the  body  of  Christ  is  communicated, 
or  as  St.  Paul  expresses  it,  it  is  the  communication  (koinonia) 
of  the  body  of  Christ.  The  bread  is  not  transmuted  into  the 
body  of  Christ,  nor  is  it  a  bare  sign  of  the  body  of  Christ,  but 
is  the  organ  and  mean  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  commu- 
nicated." 

The  new  view  of  Kahnis  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  has, 

for  various  reasons,  excited  an  interest  beyond  any- 

thing  m  its  kind  in  oar  day ;  and  as  it  links  itselt 

with  a  confused  perception  of  the  points  which  are  so  clearly 

put  by  Gerliard,  we  shall  introduce  it  here,  and,  as  an  act  of 

justice  to  its  author,  shall  give  it  entire,  instead  of  breaking  it 


VIEW  OF  KAHNIS.  679 

into  fragments  to  fit  the  parts  of  it  into  their  most  natural 
place  in  our  own  discussion.  The  view  of  Kahnis  has  aroused 
extraordinary  feeling,  not  merely  nor  mainly  hecause  of  his 
distinguished  ability  as  a  theologian,  hut  because,  in  various 
writings,  but  especially  in  his  work  on  the  Lord's  Supper 
(1851),  he  had  appeared  as  the  defender  of  the  distinctive 
Lutheran  faith  —  a  faith  to  which  he  had  shown  his  devotion 
in  1848,  by  leaving  the  State  Church  of  Prussia,  to  take  part 
with  the  persecuted  Old  Lutheran^.  This  faith,  in  more  than 
one  vital  respect,  he  has  recently  abandoned.  Most  conspicuous 
among  these  changes  are  two,  the  first  of  which  really  neces- 
sitated the  second.  Kahnis  abandons  the  doctrine  of  the  proper 
and  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  gives  Him  the  place 
assigned  by  the  theory  of  Subordination.  In  doing  this  he,  of 
necessity,  gives  up  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Sacramental  Pres- 
ence—  a  presence  which  presupposes  the  Godhead  of  Christ, 
and  the  personal  union  of  His  human  nature  with  it.  In 
Kahnis'  work,  in  which  he  aims  at  presenting  an  historico- 
genetical  delineation  of  the  Lutheran  Dogmatics,  he  unfolds 
these  changes  of  view.  His  presentation  of  his  theory  and 
argument  on  the  Lord's  Supper  "^  is  as  follows : 

"  The  fact  that  in  the  exposition  of  the  words  of  the  Institu- 
tion the  teachers  of  the  Church,  in  all  ages,  have  been  divided 
into  two  camps,  the  one  holding  to  a  verbal  sense,  the  other  to 
a  metaphorical  sense  of  the  decisive  words,  is  in  itself  enough 
to  set  bounds  to  too  confident  a  security  on  either  side.  Where 
difficulties  exist  of  the  character  which  here  meets  us,  it  is  well 
to  la}^  down  propositions  to  which  assent  may,  with  justice,  be 
demanded.  First  :  It  is  beyond  dispute,  that  the  proposition, 
The  bread  is  the  body,  the  wine  is  the  blood  of  Jesus,  literally 
taken,  is  impossible.  As  in  every  proposition  the  subject  is 
placed  in  identity  with  the  predicate,  by  means  of  the  copula, 
in  such  a  way  that  the  subject  stands  to  the  predicate  in  the 
relation  of  the  individual  to  the  general,  it  follows  that  there 
can  be  no  logical  meaning  except  in  a  proposition  in  which  the 
subject  stands  to  the  predicate  as  the  individual  stands  to  the 

*  Die  Lutherische  Dogmatik  historisch-genetiscli  dargestellt.  Leipz.  1861.  Vol. 
I.  616-626. 


680  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

general.  [N'ow  the  bread  (as  bread)  is  not  the  body  of  Christ 
(as  body).  Bread  and  body  are  heterogeneous  ideas,  which  can 
no  more  be  united  in  one  than  the  propositions :  Wood  is  iron, 
Hegel  is  ^N'apoleon,  and  such  like.  So  soon  as  a  proposition 
cannot  be  taken  literally,  as,  for  example,  in  the  one  just  given, 
*  Hegel  is  l^apoleon,'  the  figurative  exposition  is  in  place  — 
Hegel  is  a  JS'apoleon  in  the  sphere  of  science. 

"  So,  also,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  the 
proposition.  This  is  My  body,  may  he  figurative  (metaphorical). 
The  Scripture  contains  innumerable  figurative  propositions. 
Prom  the  copula  '  is  '  it  is  alike  impossible  to  demonstrate  the 
figurative  or  the  literal  character  of  the  proposition.  The  copula 
allows  of  no  change  of  meaning.  Those  who  say  that  '  is  '  is 
equivalent  to  '  signify  '  mean  to  say  that  either  the  subject  or 
the  predicate  of  a  proposition  is  to  be  taken  figuratively. 

"  Thirdly,  as  to  the  words  of  the  Institution  as  they  sound, 
it  may  be  affirmed,  without  contradiction,  that  in  them  the 
body  of  Christ  is  regarded  as  a  body  which  is  to  be  delivered  to 
death.  Though  the  body  of  the  risen  Saviour  bore  on  it  the 
marks  of  the  crucifixion  (John  xx.),  and  men  shall  recognize 
Him  at  His  second  coming  as  Him  whom  they  pierced  (Rev.  i. 
7),  from  which  it  follows  that  the  slain  body  and  the  glorified 
body  are  identical,  yet  the  words  of  the  Institution  contem- 
plate the  body,  not  as  glorified,  but  as  put  to  death.  That  the 
blood  which  was  to  be  shed,  that  is,  literally,  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  which  in  His  death  left  His  body,  has  to  be  understood 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  is  shown  by  the  proposition  as  Paul  and 
Luke  have  it :  This  cup  is  the  ^ew  Testament  in  My  blood. 
The  blood  which  has  mediated  a  new  covenant  is  that  which 
was  shed  upon  the  cross,  to  wit,  is  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ. 
If,  then,  these  propositions  stand,  we  have  a  sure  basis  for 
exposition.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  the  indisputable  funda- 
mental principle  of  hermeneutics,  that  the  literal  exposition 
has  the  first  claim,  if  the  literal  sense  be  at  all  tenable  —  a  prin- 
ciple of  special  force  in  this  case,  in  which  the  words  are  of 
such  great  importance  —  words  which  were  given  of  the  Lord 
to  Paul  by  special  revelation.  1  Cor.  xi.  25.  (See  Kahnis,  Lehre 
V.  Abendm.  14  seq.)     But  this  is  only  possible  when  in  the 


VIEW  OF  KAHNIS.  C81 

proposition,  This  is  My  body  (My  blood),  the  subject  is  not 
bread  (wine).  When  the  determination  of  the  subject  is  in- 
volved, it  is  decided  upon  the  one  hand  by  the  connection, 
on  the  other,  by  the  predicate.  The  connection  demands  as 
subject  bread  (wine;,  as  predicate,  body  (blood);  and  in  this 
wa}^  the  exposition  found  itself  directed  to  the  supposition  of 
an  internal  connection  of  bread  and  body,  and  of  wine  and 
blood,  in  which  the  predicate  gives  prominence  to  the  chief 
substance.  Thus  the  physician,  in  giving  an  essence  in  water, 
says :  This  is  a  cordial.  The  '  this,'  in  such  a  sentence,  is 
'  essence  and  w^ater,'  the  predicate  is  the  chief  substance. 
When  Christ  says,  '  My  words  are  spirit  and  life,'  from  words 
as  the  subject,  which  are  partly  spirit,  partly  letter,  He  educes 
the  essential  substance.  This  mode  of  speech,  to  which  Luther 
gives  the  name  Synecdoche,  is,  in  itself,  admissible.  The 
only  question  to  be  raised  is,  Is  it  admissible  here?  To  a 
renewed  investigation  which  we  have  given  the  subject,  on  the 
principle  'day  teacheth  unto  day,'  the  difficulties  connected 
with  this  view  have  presented  themselves  with  increasing 
force.  According  to  the  connection,  the  'this'  is  that  which 
Jesus  took,  brake,  gave  them  to  eat,  that  is,  the  bread.  In 
the  case  of  the  cup,  the  subject  is  expressly  specified  as  '  this 
cup.'  Kow  cup  (chalice),  by  the  familiar  metonomy  'container 
for  thing  contained,'  stands  for  that  which  it  contains.  But 
what  the  chalice  contains  is  wine.  Christ  does  not  say, '  That 
which  ye  now  eat  is  My  body,  that  which  ye  now  drink  is 
My  blood,  but  that  which  I  give  you  to  eat  and  drink,'  conse- 
quently is  such  in  advance  of  the  eating  and  drinking.  The 
potecrion  is  the  drink,  as  it  was  in  the  chalice  before  the  dis- 
ciples drank.  But  before  the  eating  and  drinking  it  is  still, 
according  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  bread  and  wine,  not  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  But  that  ])oteerion  means  the  wine. 
Yet  undrunken  is  affirmed  in  Paul's  exposition  (1  Cor.  x.  IG) : 
*  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  body  of  Christ? '  in  which,  beyond  doubt, 
the  bread,  as  broken  for  eating,  the  cup,  as  blessed  for  drink- 
ing, is  called  the  communion.    That  which  places  us  in  commu- 


682  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

nion  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (Abeudm.  127  seq.), 
consequently  is  such  before  the  eating  and  drinking.     But  if 
bread  (wine)  be   the   subject,  the  literal  meaning   has  to   be 
abandoned.     To  this  we  are  necessitated  by  the  proposition, 
'  This  cup  is  the  ^ew  Covenant  in  My  blood,'  inasmuch  as  it  is 
impossible  that  a  chalice  of  wine  can  itself  be  the  covenant 
relation  between  God  and  man  established  by  Christ  in  His 
death.     The  only  exposition,  therefore,  is :  This  cup  is  a  sign 
of  the  new  covenant  in  My  blood.     The  supposition  that  body 
and  blood  stand,  by  metonomy,  for  sign  of  body,  sign  of  blood 
('a^]colampadius,    Calvin)  is    untenable.     Xo  such    metonomy 
can  be   shown.     The  proposition  is  like  countless    others,  in 
which  the  predicate  is  figurative.     Thus  we  say  of  a  statue, 
This  is  Blucher ;  of  a  serpent  with  his  tail  in  his  mouth :  This 
is  eternity.     The  supposition  of  a  symbol  is  justified  by  the 
manifest  symbolical  character  of  the  whole  transaction.     The 
bread  which  is  bi^oken  is  the  body  which  is  broken  {klomenon) 
for  us ;  the  wine  which  is  poured  out  of  a  large  vessel  into  the 
chalice  is  the  blood  which  is  shed  for  us  {ekchunomenon).    That 
the  breaking  of  the  bread  has  a  special  significance  is  shown 
by  the  designation  of  the  bread  which  we  break  (1  Cor.  x.  16), 
parallel  with  the  cup  which  ice  bless.     So,  also,  in  Baptism,  the 
submergence  beneath  the  water  is  a  symbolical  act  (p.  615). 
Had  it  been  the  glorified  body  which  Jesus,  at  the  Institution, 
offered  in  the  bread,  it   might  be   imagined    that   somehow, 
though  still  in  a  mysterious  and  obscure  manner,  there  was  an 
impartation  of  it.    But  the  body  which  was  to  be  put  to  death, 
which  stood  before  the  disciples,  could  not  be  the  object  of  the 
participation. 

"To  this  point  the  exposition  of  Zwingli  is  justified.  But 
that  it  is  impossible  to  stop  here  Calvin  acknowledged,  yet 
failed,  because  he  rested  the  lever  of  his  sacramental  theory  on 
hypotheses  destitute  of  Scriptural  support.  In  the  words 
'  This  do  in  remembrance  of  Me,'  our  Lord  commanded  that 
this  Supper  should  be  celebrated  from  that  time  on  in  com- 
memoration of  Him  ;  and  it  has  been  so  done  to  tliis  day.  As 
often  as  it  is  celebrated  Jesus  dispenses,  by  the  hand  of  the 
ministrant,  bread  and  wine,  as  signs  of  His  body  and  bloody 


VIEW  OF  KAHNIS.  683 

ordained  by  Ilim.  But  signs  ordained  and  dispensed  by  God, 
through  Christ,  are  not  symbols — which  would  leave  it  unde- 
termined how  much  or  how  little  we  are  to  impute  to  them, 
but  are  a  visible  word  of  God  (p.  613).  With  the  words  of 
Christ,  '  This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of 
Me,'  the  apostle  links  the  declaration :  '  For  as  often  as  ye  eat 
of  this  bread  and  drink  of  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's 
death  till  He  come.'  Inasmuch  as  the  Supper  is  a  participa- 
tion of  bread  and  wine  as  signs  of  the  sacrificed  body  and 
blood,  it  is  a  memorial  feast  in  which  the  guest  confesses  his 
faith  in  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  But  he  who  makes 
such  a  confession  before  the  Church,  in  reality  must  do  it  in 
a  state  of  mind  fitting  it.  '  Wherefore,  whosoever  shall  eat 
this  bread,  or  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be 
guilty  (enochos)  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord '  (v.  27). 
Unochos,  literally,  bound  for,  when  it  has  the  sense  of  guilty,  is 
conjoined  with  the  genitive  either  of  the  sin,  or  of  the  penalty, 
or  of  the  person  and  thing  involved  in  the  criminality  incurred 
{Bleck  on  Heb.  ii.  15.  IL  339  seq.  cf.  552).  As  immediately 
before,  the  Supper  is  spoken  of  as  a  confession  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  we  cannot  well  understand  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
otherwise  than  as  referring  to  the  death  of  Christ,  in  the  sin 
of  which  the  unworthy  communicant  makes  himself  guilty 
(Lev.  V.  1-17  ;  2  Sam.  xxii.  22 ;  2  Mace.  xiii.  6).  He  who  con- 
fesses the  death  of  Christ  unworthily  is  guilty  of  the  death  of 
Christ.  All  men  are  guilty  of  the  death  of  Christ.  But  he 
who  believes  in  Jesus  Christ  seeks  from  Jesus  Christ  forgive- 
ness of  the  sin  which  crucified  Christ.  But  he  who  receives 
forgiveness  of  his  sin  is  thereby  absolved  from  the  guilt  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  He,  consequently,  who  receives  the 
Supper  unworthily,  really  confesses :  I  have  slain  Christ,  and 
does  not  receive  forgiveness  from  that  sin,  and  is,  consequently, 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  In  this  passage, 
beyond  doubt,  body  and  blood  have  the  sense,  death  of  Christ : 
'  Wherefore  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of 
that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and 
drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  him- 
self, not  discerning  the  Lord's  body.     For  this  cause  are  many 


684  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 

weak  and  sickly  among  you,  and  many  sleep '  (v.  28-30).  The 
unworthy  reception  of  the  Supper,  which  involves  so  great  a 
guilt,  produces,  also,  a  serious  punishment.  He  who  eats  and 
drinks  bread  and  wine  in  the  Supper  as  if  they  were  common 
food  and  common  drink,  without  considering  that  bread  and 
wiue  are  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  draws  upon  himself,  by 
80  eating  and  drinking,  a  penalty.  Upon  the  body  into  which 
he  receives  bread  and  wine  he  draws  sickness  and  death.  It 
is  at  once  apparent  that  such  results  cannot  be  explained  on 
the  theory  that  this  is  a  mere  symbolical  transaction,  in  which 
there  lies  just  so  much  as  faith  puts  into  it.  This  feast,  or- 
dained and  dispensed  of  God,  through  faith  in  Christ,  has  as 
its  substance  the  divine  word  concerning  the  sacrificial  death, 
which  word,  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  instituted  this  feast,  im- 
parts to  the  recipient.  Inasmuch  as  the  word  of  God,  as 
spoken  or  written,  never  goes  forth  void,  but  is  a  savor  of 
death  unto  death  to  every  one  to  whom  it  is  not  a  savor  of  life 
unto  life,  so  in  the  Supper  the  word  concerning  the  atoning 
death  of  Christ  is  not  merely  set  forth,  but  Christ  applies  it, 
by  the  hand  of  the  ministrant,  to  the  recipient  for  bodily  recep- 
tion. But  a  visible  word  of  God,  which  Christ  applies  to  the 
individual  after  the  manner  of  sensible  reception,  is  a  sacra- 
mental word.  The  same  result  is  reached  by  attentively  con- 
sidering 1  Cor.  X.  16,  seq.  The  discourse  is  of  sacrificial  flesh. 
As  in  Israel  those  who  ate  of  the  sacrifice  entered  into  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  altar,  so  those  who  participated  in  the  banquets 
on  the  Heathen  sacrifices  entered  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
gods  who  are  Demons.  He  who  drinks  the  cup  of  the  Lord 
cannot  drink  the  cup  of  Demons,  and  he  who  participates  at 
the  table  of  the  Lord  cannot  take  part  at  the  table  of  Demons. 
*  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?  For  we,  being  many, 
are  one  bread  and  one  body:  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that 
one  bread  '  (v.  16, 17).  As  the  sacrificial  flesh  of  the  Jews  and 
Heathen  united  them  w^ith  the  altar,  and,  consequently,  with 
the  God,  or  the  gods,  to  whom  the  altar  was  reared,  so  is  the 
bread  of  the  Supper  the  conjnmnion,  that  is,  the  medium  of 


VIEW  OF  KAUNIS.  685 

communion  (that  through  which  the  communion  is  made)  with 
the  hody,  the  wine  the  communion  with  the  blood.  Body  and 
blood  of  Christ  cannot  here  mean  the  glorified  corporeal  nature 
of  Christ,  but  only  that  which  is  sacrificed,  that  is,  the  death 
of  Christ,  because  otherwise  the  point  of  comparison  with  the 
sacrificial  feast  is  lost.  The  death  of  Christ  is  the  sacrifice; 
bread  and  wine  the  sacrificial  meal.  But  here  again  bread 
and  wine  are  not  a  mere  symbol,  but  a  sign  which  is,  at  the 
same  time,  a  medium.  !Not  faith,  but  bread  and  wine,  brings 
into  union  with  the  sacrificed  humanity  of  Christ.  As  the 
sacrificial  flesh  is  not  ordinary  flesh,  but  a  medium  of  fellow- 
ship with  the  divine  being  to  whom  it  pertains,  so,  also,  in  the 
Supper,  bread  is  not  ordinary  food,  but  a  medium  of  fellowship 
with  the  sacrificed  corporeal  nature  of  Christ,  to  w^hom  it  per- 
tains. Bread  and  wine,  consequently,  signs  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  are,  in  virtue  of  the  institution  of  Christ,  the  sacramental 
word  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  ivord,  commanded  by 
Christ,  apjplies  to  the  deaih  of  Christ.  The  sacrificial  death  of 
Christ  is  a  fact  of  the  past,  which  abides  only  in  its  power, 
that  is,  in  the  reconciliation  with  God,  which  is  its  work.  He, 
consequently,  Avho  partakes  of  the  Lord's  Supper  worthily, 
that  is,  in  faith,  receives  the  virtue  of  the  death  of  Christ,  that 
is,  forgiveness  of  sins.  At  this  point  Luther's  doctrine  is  vin- 
dicated, according  to  which,  forgiveness  of  sins  is  the  proper 
fruit  of  the  believing  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  This 
doctrine  Luther  rested  on  the  words :  Broken  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  which  he  explained,  not  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
but  of  the  impartation  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Supper. 
This  word  concerning  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  not  the  reception 
of  the  glorified  body,  is,  to  him,  the  main  thing  in  the  Sacra- 
ment. The  body  of  Christ  is  to  him  but  a  pledge  of  the  word. 
But  in  this  mode  of  apprehending  it,  the  exposition  of  Iddinenon 
is  surely  not  tenable,  for  that  word  can  only  refer  to  the  sacri- 
ficial death  of  Christ,  as  even  the  Formula  of  Concord  teaches 
(Abendm.  99,  209).  But  even  if  this  exposition  were  aban- 
doned, the  relation  of  the  word  touchino^  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  to  the  glorified  body  would  remain  completely  unadjusted 
(Abendm.  358).     Finally,  however,  Luther's  doctrine  ignores 


686  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

the  weight  wliich  is  attached  to  the  death  of  Christ  hoth  by 
the  words  of  the  institution  and  the  apostle's  doctrine  of  the 
Supper.  In  all  the  passages  which  we  have  just  been  consider- 
ing, the  language  has  reference,  not  to  the  glorified,  but  to  the 
broken,  or  given  body,  that  is,  the  sacrificed  body.  Even  if 
the  Supper  was  not  instituted  in  connection  with  the  feast  of 
the  Passover,  yet  Paul,  in  the  words  (1  Cor.  v.  6,  7),  '  Christ 
our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us,'  and  John  (John  xix.  36),  by 
applying  to  the  unbroken  body  of  our  Lord  the  Old  Testa- 
ment command  that  the  Paschal  Lamb  must  not  be  broken 
(Exod.  xii.  46  ;  Ps.  xxxiv.  20),  represent  the  death  of  Christ 
as  a  paschal  sacrifice.  We  have  seen  (Dogm.  I.  262  seq.)  that 
in  the  Passover  lay  the  germ  of  the  later  worship.  It  was  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a  sacrificial  meal. 
The  fulfilling  has  separated  into  two  elements  the  two  parts 
of  the  Paschal  Feast,  the  offering  and  the  eating.  Christ,  the 
Paschal  Lamb,  was  sacrificed  on  Golgotha,  at  the  time  when 
the  paschal  lamb  was  ottered  in  the  temple.  This  sacrifice, 
which  Christ  oflered  in  His  own  body  to  God,  is  the  fulfilling 
of  all  sacrifices,  and,  consequently,  the  last  sacrifice,  and  has 
an  objective  atoning  efficacy  for  all  men,  and  forever  more. 
After  this  sacrifice  has  been  made,  the  appropriation  of  it 
remains,  until  Christ's  second  coming,  the  essence  of  the  Sup- 
per, the  transfigured  paschal  festival.  In  the  bread  broken 
and  the  cup  blessed,  God  imparts,  through  Jesus  Christ,  in 
whose  name  it  is  dispensed,  not  merely  a  sign,  but  a  visible 
word,  which,  to  the  believing  recipient,  is  a  medium  of  com- 
munion, a  word  concerning  the  sacrificial  death  of  Jesus  Christ. 
He  who,  in  faith,  partakes  of  the  bread  and  wine  as  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  receives  the  fruit  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  to  wit,  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

"  But  even  with  this  the  significance  of  the  Supper  is  not 
exhausted.  To  this  the  Passover,  the  type  of  the  Supper, 
already  points.  The  paschal  supper  was  not  a  mere  appropria- 
tion of  the  propitiatory  virtue  of  the  paschal  sacrifice.  It  was 
the  supper  of  the  living  fellowship  of  the  people,  of  a  unity  of 
families,  with  God  (Dogm.  I.  262  seq).  The  Lord's  Supper  is, 
consequently,  also,  no  bare  appropriation  of  the  propitiatory 


VIEW  OF  KAHNIS.  687 

virtue  of  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  blood  of  the  sacrifice  which 
was  offered  to  God  is  the  life  which  lias  passed  through  death, 
and  makes  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men  (Dogm.  I.  271  seq., 
and  584).  In  the  Kew  Testament,  consequently,  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  not  merely  a  concrete  expression  for  death,  but  means 
the  life  of  this  death,  that  is,  the  propitiatory  power  of  it, 
which  forever  dwells  in  the  corporeal  nature  of  Christ  which 
has  passed  through  death  (Rom.  iii.  25  ;  Eph.  i.  7  ;  1  John 
i.  7  ;  Heb.  ix.  25  ;  xiii.  20,  and  see,  on  them,  Olshausen,  Har- 
less.  Be  Wette,  Bleek :  Abendm.  63  seq).  He,  therefore,  who, 
in  faith,  grasps  the  death  of  Christ,  receives  the  propitia- 
tory virtue  of  the  blood  of  Christ  —  the  virtue  which  dwells 
in  the  glorified  body  of  Christ.  Hence  St.  John  (1  John  v. 
6-8)  styles  the  Supper  simply  'the  blood.'  As  the  appearing 
of  Christ  stood  between  water  (Baptism)  and  blood  (death), 
thus  water  and  blood  still  testify  of  Him.  The  blood  which 
testifies  of  Him  can  be  nothing  but  the  Supper.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  Supper  is,  consequently,  Christ's  death  as  a 
power  of  atonement.  But  he  who  receives  this  power  of  the 
glorified  bodily  nature  of  Christ,  receives  in  himself  Christ's 
bodily  nature  itself,  and  in  and  with  it  the  entire  living  Christ. 
This  is  the  mystical  meaning  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus  in  John 
vi.  Jesus  Christ  calls  Himself  the  bread  which  has  come  down 
from  heaven,  which  gives  life  to  him  who  eats  of  it.  From 
this  thouo^ht  He  advances  in  v.  51 :  '  And  the  bread  which 
I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the 
world.'  After  the  offence  which  the  people  took  at  Him,  He 
expresses  this  thought  still  more  strongly :  '  Verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  His 
blood,  3^e  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  My  flesh,  and 
drinketh  My  blood,  hath  eternal  life ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up 
at  the  last  day.  For  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  blood  is 
drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood, 
dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent 
Me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  Me,  even  he 
shall  live  by  Me.  This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven :  not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna,  and  are  dead  :  he 
that  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  forever '  (v.  53-59).     The 


688  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

bread  of  life  which  has  come  from  heaven  is  the  divine  person- 
ality of  Jesus  Christ.  To  eat  this  bread  can  have  no  other 
meaning  than  to  appropriate  Jesus  in  faith.  Kow,  as  Jesus 
attaches  to  the  eating  of  His  flesh  and  the  drinking  of  His 
blood  the  same  operations  which  are  attributed  to  faith  (v.  47) 
and  to  the  eating  of  the  bread  of  heaven  (v.  50,  51\  namely, 
eternal  life,  the  eating  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  cannot  be,  specifi- 
cally, anything  else  than  the  eating  of  the  bread  from  heaven, 
that  is,  the  faith  which  unites  with  Christ.  The  flesh  of  Christ, 
which  He  gives  for  the  life  of  the  world,  is  His  body,  which  is 
to  be  given  in  death,  that  is,  is  His  death.  Eating  the  flesh 
and  drinking  the  blood  can,  consequently,  only  mean  the 
receiving  in  us,  in  faith,  Jesus  as  the  Crucified  for  us.  This 
is  the  condition  of  salvation,  of  living  fellowship  with  Christ, 
of  everlasting  life,  of  the  resurrection.  He  who  receives  in 
himself  Jesus  Christ  in  His  body  and  blood  given  to  death, 
receives,  in  this  bodily  nature,  slain  for  us,  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  fills  him  with  the  powers  of  eternity.  The  unity 
of  this  proposition  lies,  beyond  doubt,  in  this,  that  the  power 
of  the  slain  bodily  nature  of  Christ  is  absorbed  into  the  glori- 
fied bodily  nature  of  Christ ;  so  that  he  who  grasps  the  sacri- 
ficed bodily  nature  of  Christ  with  its  propitiatory  power, 
together  with  the  glorified  corporeal  nature,  is  filled,  by  it, 
with  the  entire  person  of  Christ.  The  discourse  in  John  vi. 
does  not,  primarily,  treat  of  the  Supper,  but  of  that  faith 
which  establishes  a  living  fellowship  between  us  and  Christ. 
But  Christ,  beyond  doubt,  designedly  veiled  the  faith  under 
the  image  of  an  eating  of  His  flesh  and  drinking  of  His  blood, 
in  order  to  express  the  mystical  thought  which  subsequently 
was  to  be  transferred  to  the  body  in  the  Supper,  just  as  in 
John  iii.  5,  He  expressed  the  idea  of  Baptism.  For  the  history 
of  the  exposition,  see  Abendm.  114  seq.  It  is  now  alone  that 
we  come  to  understand  why  Jesus  calls  bread  and  wine  not 
merely  signs  of  His  death,  but  of  His  body  and  blood,  which 
are  to  be  given  to  death.  Inasmuch  as  Christ  designates  His 
death  as  a  suffering  which  is  to  be  endured  by  His  body,  His 
blood,  He  means  to  express  the  thought  that  just  as  little  as 
broken  bread  ceases  to  be  bread,  and  wine  poured  out  ceases  to 


VIEW  OF  KAIINIS.  689 

be  wine,  just  as  little  does  that  dissolution  destroy  the  sub- 
stance of  His  body.     He  does  not  give  us  His  death  to  eat,  but 
His  body.     The  bread  signifies  Christ's  body,  the  breaking  of 
the  bread  the  killing  of  the  body,  the  eating  of  the  bread  the 
appropriation  of  the  slain  body  in  faith.     The  Christian  who 
grasps  the  slain  body  of  Christ  in  faith,  appropriates  to  him- 
self the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  body  of  Christ  also,  as  he  who 
eats  of  the  broken  bread  makes  use  of  the  breaking  that  he 
may  receive  into  him  the  bread.     He  who   eats   the  broken 
bread  commutes  it  into  his   organism,  consequently  into  his 
life.     He  who,  in  faith,  grasps  the  slain  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
makes  it  living  by  receiving  into  himself  its  vital  power,  that 
is,  its  power  of  atonement,    i/",  noiv,  that  ivhich  the  body  of  Christ 
suffered  in  death  inheres  in  the  glorified  body^  then  he  who  receives 
the  ato7iiny  power  immanent  in  the  glorified  body  receives  into  hira- 
self  the  glorified  body  itself  and  in  and  with  it  the  ivhole  Christ. 
This  is  the  truth  which  lies  in  the  Lutheran  exposition  of  the 
words  of  institution.    We  cannot  grasp  the  slain  body  in  faith 
without  receiving  the  glorified  body  into  us,  because  the  virtue 
of  the  slain  body  lies  in  the  glorified  body.     This  reception  is, 
it  is  true,  no  eating  and  drinking,  but  a  spiritual  reception  by 
faith  as  a  medium.     The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  spiritual  eating 
and  drinking  (1  Cor.  x.  3,  4,  12,  13.     See  Abendm.  145,  seq.) 
He  who,  in  faith,  receives  Christ's  body  and  blood,  receives 
the  whole  Christ  into  himself  (John  vi.  59),  which  can  take 
place  in  no  other  than  a  spiritual  manner.     As,  finally,  the 
feast  of  the  Passover  was  a  feast  of  fellowship  in  which  the 
people  of  Israel  were  contemplated  as  one  great  family  of  God 
(Dogm.  L  263),  so  is  the  Lord's  Supper  a  feast  of  fellowship  in 
which  they  who  eat  of  the  one  bread  are  one  body  (1  Cor.  x.  17)." 
Such,  without  abridgment,  is  Kahnis'  own  statement  of  his 
new  faith,  and  of  the  argument  for  it.     The  feebleness,  vacilla- 
tion, and  self-contradiction  involved  in  it  are  beyond  expression. 
At  some  point  or  other  it  exhibits  the  characteristic  weakness 
of  almost  every  false  view  which  has  ever  been  taken  of  the  Sup- 
per.    It  is  artificial,  and  yet  not  artistic ;  it  is  confused  rather 
than  complicated ;  for  with  all  its  elaboration  it  is  not  difiicult  to 
disentangle  it.     It  wears  the  air  of  a  self-tormented  rationalism 

44 


690  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

which  abandons  the  faith,  and  is  ashamed  of  its  apostasy.  It 
does  not  propose  a  single  new  point.  All  its  issues  were  long 
ago  made  and  met.  It  is,  in  part,  Zwinglianism  tricked  out 
with  rhetoric ;  in  part,  Calvinism  reached  by  circuitous  by-paths ; 
in  part,  a  reproduction  of  the  weak  point  in  the  Syngramma 
Suevicum  —  in  short,  a  clumsy  appropriation  and  fusion  of 
exploded  views,  which  yet  assumes  the  air  of  original  discovery. 
It  distributes,  after  the  manner  of  a  huntsman,  alternate  lashes 
and  morsels  to  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Luther;  but  certainly  has 
this  merit,  that  it  would  unite  them  so  far  that  they  would 
perfectly  agree  that  such  a  view,  on  such  grounds,  is  unten- 
able. Such  of  the  points  made  by  Kahnis  as  have  not  been 
anticipated  in  the  previous  part  of  our  discussion  will  be  taken 
up  in  what  follows. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Kahnis  takes  the  true  view  of  the 

1. '"Is."    De  necessary  force  of  "is;"  and  in  this  is  in  com- 

wette,  and  oth-  pletc  couflict  with  the  mass  of  rationalizing  and 

rationalistic  interpretation   from   Zwingli  to   this 

hour.     The  last  refuge  of  this  interpretation  has  been  in  the 

word  which  Kahnis  surrenders. 

Thus,  De  Wette's  note  on  i^c/  is  this:  "In  these  contested 
words  the  is-i  (which,  in  the  Aramaic  denah  hua  gyphy.,  was 
not  expressed)  is  the  bare  logical  copula,  and  can,  in  itself,  just 
as  well  amount  to  a  real  is  (so  Luther)  or  a  symbolic  Z5,  that 
is,  signifies  (so  Zwingli).  But,  in  fact,  the  latter  sense  alone  is 
admissible  ;  for  the  discourse  and  transaction  is  symbolical,  like 
that  in  John  xx.  22  (He  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto 
them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost),  and  in  this  instance,  at 
least,  the  actual  body  of  Jesus  could  not  have  been  the  subject 
of  discourse.     Eiva/  has  the  latter  sense  in 

"  Luke  xii.  1.  Beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees^  lohich  is 
hypocrisy. 

"  Heb.  x.  20.  Through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say  (tout'c^tti)  (id  est, 
'das  ist).  His  flesh. 

"  John  xiv.  6.  I  am.  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life :  no  man 
cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  Me. 

"  John  XV.  1.  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  My  Father  is  the  hus- 
bandman. 


"IS."  — BE   WETTE,   AND    OTHERS.  691 

"  John  XV.  5.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches  •  he  that 
abideth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringcth  forth  much 
fruit." 

Meyer  adds,  as  a  proof-text,  that  hii.  "is  the  copula  of  the 
symbolic  or  allegoric  sense  :  " 

Gal.  iv.  24.  "Which  things  are  an  allegory.  For  these 
(ajrai)  are  the  two  covenants. 

Lange,  for  the  allegorical  and  symbolical  occurrence  of  icr/, 
adds  to  Meyer  and  De  Wette  as  proof,  only  Ex.  xii.  11.  Ye 
shall  eat  it  (the  lamb)  in  haste ;  it  is  the  Lord's  passover. 

Olshausen,  to  show  that  the  sense  of  *'  signifies  "  is  possible, 
cites :  1  Pet.  i.  28.  The  word  of  the  Lord  endureth  forever. 
And  this  is  (tojto  6e  stfn)  the  word  which  by  the  gospel  is 
preached  unto  you.  Philem.  12.  Thou,  therefore,  receive  him, 
that  is  (TouTstTTt),  mine  own  bowels.  John  x.  7.  I  am  the  door 
of  the  sheep ;  x.  9.  I  am  the  door :  by  Me  if  any  man  enter 
in,  he  shall  be  saved. 

In  other  writers,  both  of  earlier  and  later  date,  we  have  these 
citations,  as  assumed  parallels  to  the  sacramental  words :  Gen. 
xli.  26.  The  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years ;  the  seven  good 
ears  are  seven  years. 

With  the  Calvinists,  in  their  theory  of  exhibitive  sign,  these 
texts  were  favorites:  Titus  iii.  5.  The  washing  of  regenera- 
tion— as  if  Baptism  were  called  regeneration.  1  Cor.  x.  4.  They 
drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them,  and  that  rock 
was  Christ.  John  i.  32.  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from 
heaven  like  a  dove  —  as  if  it  were  said  the  Spirit  is  the  dove. 
One  of  the  most  recent  writers  against  the  Lutheran  view  lays 
stress  on  the  passage:  "All  flesh  (is)  grass,"  which  he  thinks 
indisputably  means  "  All  flesh  is  like  grass;"  and  thus  proves 
that  "  is  "  may  mean  "  is  like,"  and  that  the  proposition  of  the 
Supper,  stated  in  full,  is :  "  This  bread  is  like  My  body."  It  is 
true  the  word  "  is  "  is  not  in  the  original  of  either  Isaiah  or 
Peter,  but  if  it  were,  the  interpretation  proposed  would  stand, 
in  general,  where  it  now  stands ;  for  when  we  change  such  a 
phrase  as :  "  All  flesh  is  grass"  into  "  all  flesh  is  like  grass," 
the  word  "  like  "  is  derived,  not  from  the  "  is,"  (especially  when 
it  is  not  there,)  but  from  the  "^?'rt56\"     Consequently,  we  may 


692  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

say :  All  flesh  is  grass-\WQ ;  IS'apoleon  is  fox-like.  The  critic 
fatally  wounds  his  own  tlieory,  when,  not  at  all  to  the  point 
for  the  purpose  he  has  in  view,  he  says :  "  The  mere  juxtaposi- 
tion of  the  suhject  and  predicate,  icithout  the  intervenivg  copula 
(the  '  is  '),  is  common  in  most  languages,  particularly  Hebrew, 
and  more  especially  in  metaphorical  language  ;"  that  is,  the  word 
in  which  the  metaphor  lies,  according  to  the  critic's  theory,  is 
not  only  not  necessary,  but  the  very  fact  that  language  is  meta- 
phorical leads  to  its  omission.  The  stress  of  the  metaphor  is  so 
violent  upon  the  "  is,"  as  to  squeeze  it  utterly  out  of  the  sen- 
tence. 

1.  Of  the  views  of  the    critic   in    regard    to    metaphor,  as 

involved  in  the  copula,  with  which  the  possibility 

2.  Of   the    na-  .  .^  '  .      ,,  ^^   ,,        .       . 

ture  of  metaphor  of  his  interpretation  of  "is  stands  or  falls,  it  is 
as  affectin^r  the  ej^Qu^h  to  sav  that  thcv  are  arrayed  as-ainst  the 

force  of  "is."  .     ^  .  .  ,  , 

universal  judgment  of  rational  men  ;  that  they  do 
defiance  alike  to  the  statements  of  the  most  learned  and  of  the 
most  popular  works.  He  says  that  in  such  a  sentence  as  this: 
"  IN'apoleon  is  a  fox,"  ^N'apoleon  is  literal ;  which  is  very  true ; 
and  so  also,  he  says,  is  fox.  The  one  would,  consequently, 
mean  the  man  of  that  name,  and  the  other  would  mean,  liter- 
ally, the  animal  of  that  name.  Hence  Napoleon  is  like  "  an 
animal  of  the  genus  Yulpis,  with  a  straight  tail,  yellowish  or 
straw-colored  hair,  and  erect  ears,  burrowing  in  the  earth, 
remarkable  for  his  cunning  and  his  fondness  for  lambs,  geese, 
hens,  and  other  small  animals."* 

2.  How  will  our  critic  resolve  this  sentence :  "  ISTapoleon  is 
Emperor  of  France,  and  a  great  fox  ?  "  If  "  is  "  be  literal  and 
'-^fox  "  be  literal,  then  he  actually  is  a  literal  fox  ;  if  "  is  " 
means  is  like^  then  IS'apoleon  is  like  the  Emperor  of  France. 
If,  moreover,  when  we  say  Kapoleon  is  a  fox,  the  word  fox 
means  the  literal  animal,  what  is  meant  by  it  when  some  one 
adds :  That  fox  will  be  caught  yet  ?  Is  it  the  literal  animal  of 
the  genus  Vulpis,  with  the  straight  tail  and  the  fondness  for 
geese,  which  is  then  meant  ?  and  yet  cannot  a  child  see  that 
the  word  fox  is  used  in  the  second  case  as  it  was  in  the  first? 

3.  The  critic  himself,  when  he  comes  to  explain  the  phrase, 

*  Webster. 


OF  THE  NATURE   OF  METAPHOR.  693 

proves  that  "  is  like  "  is  not  sufficient  as  the  meaning  of  "  is," 
but  that  he  must  make  it  mean,  "  resembles  in  his  reputed 
cunning."  The  verb  "to  be"  means,  then,  "to  resemble  in 
reputed  cunning  "  when  it  comes  before  the  word  "  fox  ;"  it 
also  means  "  to  resemble  in  reputed  firmness  "  when  it  comes 
before  "  rock  ;  "  it  means  "  to  resemble  in  reputed  feebleness" 
when  it  comes  before  "  grass  :  "  "  to  resemble  in  reputed  sweet- 
ness "  when  it  comes  before  "  rose."  In  other  words,  it  means 
everything  conceivable  which  begins  with  "  resemble,"  and  has 
such  a  range  of  meaning  that  we  might  set  aside  a  vast  host 
of  words  with  which  our  lano^uag-e  is  now  encumbered. 

4.  To  define,  in  a  disputed  case,  the  word  "  is  "  by  "  is  like^^ 
is  to  do  what,  in  its  own  nature,  is  inaccurate,  and,  in  the  pres- 
ent case,  is  absurd.,  for  it  repeats,  in  the  definition,  the  word  to 
be  defined.  If  "  is  "  by  itself  means  "  is  like,"  what  does  it 
mean  when  combined  with  the  word  "  like  "  ?  If,  when  it  is 
said  "ITapoleon  is  a  fox,"  it  means  "is  like  a  fox,"  what  does 
it  mean  in  the  sentence  thus  produced  ?  Define  the  word  "  is  " 
in  the  sentence  :  E'apoleon  is  a  fox.  N'ow  define  the  word  "  is  " 
in  the  sentence :  IN'apoleon  is  like  a  fox. 

The  same  objection  virtually  holds  against  all  the  other  pro- 
posed definitions  of  "  is."  "  Signifies  "  means  "  is  a  sign  of;  " 
"symbolizes"  means  "  i5  a  symbol  of."  If  This  is  my  body 
means  This  is  a  sign  of  my  body,  then  This  is  a  sign  of  my 
body  means  This  is  a  sign  of  a  sign  of  my  body  ;  and  this 
renewed  "is"  having  the  same  force  again  of  "is  a  sign,"  we 
have  an  interminable  series  in  which  nothing  is  or  can  be,  but 
everything  must  be  the  sign  of  something  else. 

5.  What  does  our  critic,  on  his  theory,  make  of  such  expres- 
sions as  this :  Louis  ISTapoleon  is  like  a  lamb,  but  is  a  wolf, 
nevertheless  ?  Why  is  it  that  when  we  ask  what  a  thing  is, 
and  the  reply  is :  It  is  like  so  and  so,  we  rejoin :  We  did  not 
ask  you  what  it  is  like.,  but  what  it  is  ?  "  He  is  not  my  brother, 
but  he  is  exactly  like  him."  How  can  terms  which  are  the  very 
opposite  to  each  other  in  one  case  be  synonyms  in  another? 

6.  How  does  this  theory  suit  where  the  article  is  used  in 
metaphor:  "lam  the  door."  lam  like  the  door?  What  is 
the  door  Christ  is  like  ?    And  if  He  is  only  like  that  door,  would 


694  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

it  not  be  better  to  find  the  door  itself?  "  I  am  the  vine."  Who 
or  what  is  that  vine  which  Christ  is  merely  like  ?  "  Ye  are 
the  branches."  Who  are  the  branches,  in  fact,  if  the  disciples 
are  merely  like  the  branches ?  "I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and 
the  life."  AYhat  is  the  real  way,  the  real  truth,  the  real  life, 
which  Christ  merely  resembles? 

How  does  it  suit  when  a  pronoun  is  added  in  metaphor: 
"  Israel  is  my  flock  ;  "  Israel  is  like  my  flock  ?  What  is  God's 
real  flock  which  Israel  is  like  ? 

How  does  it  suit  when  an  adjective  is  used  in  metaphor :  "  I 
am  the  true  Shepherd  "  ?  Who  is  actually  the  true  Shepherd 
w^hom  our  Saviour  is  merely  like  ? 

How  does  it  suit  when  qualifying  nouns  are  added :  "  The 
rock  of  my  strength;  rock  of  salvation;  to  come  t< » the  rock  of 
Israel ;  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;  I  lay  in  Zion  .  . 
a  rock  "?  Where  is  the  theory  in  these  that  the  metaphor  is 
not  in  the  noun  ? 

How  does  it  suit  in  such  phrases  as :  "  Blessed  be  my  rock"? 
Is  some  one  who  is  like  my  rock  the  object  of  blessing  ?  "  Unto 
Thee  will  I  ciy,  0  Lord,  my  rock."  If  fox  in  metaphor  is  a 
literal  fox,  what  does  our  Saviour  mean  when  He  says  of 
Herod  :  "  Go  tell  that  fox  "  ? 

Can  anything  be  more  clear  than  that  the  metaphor,  in  such 
cases,  lies  not  in  the  substantive  verb,  w^hich  is  unchanging  in 
its  meaning,  but  in  the  noun  ? 

Will  the  critic  please  tell  us  the  canon  by  which  he  settles 
it,  that,  in  a  certain  case,  where  "is  "  connects  two  nomina- 
tives, it  means  or  does  not  mean  "is  like"?  How  does  he 
know  that,  in  the  sentence:  "Louis  ^L^apoleon  is  Emperor," 
the  "  is  "  does  not  mean  "  is  like,"  and  that,  in  the  phrase: 
"  Louis  Kapoleon  is  a  fox,"  it  does  mean  "  is  like  "?  Does  not 
the  name  Emperor,  in  the  one  case,  and  the  name  fox  in  the 
other  settle  it ?  When  he  simply  hears  thus  much:  "Napo- 
leon is,"  he  cannot  tell,  on  his  own  theory,  whether  "  is  "  means 
"  is,"  or  "is  like."  The  metaphor  must,  then,  lie,  not  in  the 
verb,  but  in  the  name  ;  but  it  is  conceded,  that,  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  it  does  not  lie  in  the  name ;  therefore  it  is  not  there. 
When  Wendelin  (d.  1652)  published  his   system  he   said: 


KECKERMANN-PISCATOR.  695 

"  The  main  controversy  is  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  is,' " 
and  then  states  what  had  then  come  to  be  the  accepted  position 
of  his  party  :  "  '  Is  '  is  taken  for  signifies  :  '  This  is,  that  is,  this 
signifies  my  body.'  On  account  of  this  signification  (propter 
banc  signiiicationem)  of  the  copula,  or  verb  is,  we  say  that 
Christ's" words:  'This  is  my  body,' oi(^A<  not  to  he  understood 
literally  "  (non  debere  intelligi  proprie).  From  Zwingli's  time, 
in  fact,  this  has  been  the  position,  almost  without  exception, 
of  all  who  have  attempted  to  defend  the  metaphorical  charac- 
ter of  the  words,  and  this  is  the  position  of  most  writers  of  that 
school  now.  Yet  so  invincible  are  the  facts  and  principles  that 
after  the  retreat  to  ''is,"  as  the  point  for  a  last  struggle, 
many  of  the  best  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  writers  cuncessio..s  of 
felt  themselves  compelled  to  abandon  it.  At  the  '^^^^^^'''■^'^'^'"^' 
beginning  of  the  controversy  Carlstadt  and  (Eco- 
lampadius  admitted  that  "  is  "  has  the  exact  force  claimed  for 
it  by  Luther.  On  this  'point  they  stood  with  Luther  against 
Zwingli.  They  concurred  with  Zwingli's  doctrine,  but  denied 
the  validity  of  his  proof.  They  supposed  him  to  have  reached 
the  truth  by  a  process  of  error.  His  conclusion  was  right, 
though  the  reason  which  led  him  to  it  was  wrong.  The  three 
men  reached  a  common  result  of  inference,  though  each  one  of 
the  three  premises  implied  the  falsehood  of  the  other  two. 
Even  after  the  violent  controversies  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
when  both  parties  had  so  many  reasons  which  made  the  most 
powerful  appeal  to  natural  pride  not  to  abandon  a  position  with 
which  their  cause  had  been  identified,  Calvinistic  theologians 
of  the  first  rank  confessed  the  old  position  in  regard  to  "  is  " 
entirely  untenable.  Thus  Keckermann  (d.  1609) 
says:*  "Some  maintain  that  there  is  a  trope  in 
the  copula,  a  position  which  it  is  impossible  to  approve.  .  . 
There  cannot  be  a  trope  in  it."  Still  more  extraordinary  is 
the  admission  of  Piscator  of  Herborn  (d.  1626)  who,  following 
Beza,  in  controversy  with  Daniel  Hoffmann,  of  Helmstadt  (d. 
1611),  had  fully  committed  himself  to  the  position  whose  falsity 
he  came  to  confess.  In  his  first  work  he  had  said :  "  I  afi^rm 
that  the  metonomy  lies  in  the  substantive  verb  '  is,'  and  Iprove 

*  System.  Theolog.  III.  8. 


Keckermann, 
Piscator. 


696  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

it  in  this  way :  That  metonomy  is  either  in  the  subject,  or  in 
the  predicate,  or  in  the  copula  of  the  proposition.  But  it  is  not 
in  the  subject,  nor  is  it  in  the  predicate.  Therefore  it  is  in  the 
copula."  The  reply  of  Hoffmann  was  so  complete,  that  a  result 
almost  without  parallel  in  controversy  took  place.  Piscator 
acknowledged  that  his  position  was  untenable  :  "  I  have  been 
like  a  gladiator  who,  incautiously  handling  his  sword,  wounds 
himself  with  it.  .  .  There  cannot  be  a  trope  in  the  copula  '  is.' 
In  brief,  before  I  enter  on  this  third  struggle,  I  retract  my 
former  opinion."^  The  ripest  scholarship  of  the  most  recent 
period,  even  under  Calvinistic  prepossessions,  shows  the  wisdom 
„   . .  of  Piscator's  retraction.    Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  for 

Robinson, 

schaff.  Kahnis.  exauiplc,  thc  grcatcst  of  American  l!Tew  Testament 
lexicographers,  if,  as  a  Puritan,  he  had  been  swayed  by  uncon- 
scious doctrinal  influence  (for  of  conscious  misrepresentation 
he  was  incapable),  would  have  been,  of  course,  on  this  point, 
adverse  to  the  Lutheran  view.  It  is  a  happy  thing  for  the 
truth  here,  that  this  eminent  scholar,  who  so  happily  combined 
the  results  of  English  and  German  culture,  saw  and  expressed 
the  exact  truth  on  this  point.  He  says  of  eimi :  ''  The  verb 
eimi  is  the  usual  verb  of  existence,  to  be  ;  and  also  the  usual 
logical  copula,  connecting  subject  and  predicate :  I.  As  the  verb 
of  existence,  to  be,  to  exist,  to  have  existence.  II.  As  the  logical 
copula,  connecting  the  subject  and  the  predicate,  to  be  ;  where 
the  predicate  specifies  who  or  what  a  person  or  thing  is  in 
respect  to  nature,  origin,  office",  condition,  circumstances,  state, 
place,  habit,  disposition  of  mind,  etc.,  etc.  But  these  ideas  cdl 
lie  in  the  predicate,  and  not  in  the  copula,  which  inerely  con7\ects 
the  predicate  with  the  subject.''  What  Robinson  says  is  one  of 
the  elementary  philological  truths  on  which  sound  thinkers, 
when  once  the  point  is  fairly  brought  before  their  minds,  can- 
not diflter.  Thus,  for  example,  we  have  in  Bagster's  Greek 
Lexicon  :  f  "  Eimi,  a  verb  of  existence,  to  be,  to  exist  ;  a  simple 
copula  to  the  subject  and  predicate,  and,  therefore,  in  itself  affect- 
ing the  force  of  the  sentence  only  by  its  tense,  mood,  etc."  This 
same  statement,  word  for  word,  is  made  by  Green  in  hia 
"Greek-English  Lexicon  to  the  ISTew  Testament. ":[ 

*  Scherzer:  Colleg.  Anticalv.  Lips.  1704,  4to,  574.  f  London,  1852,  4to. 

X  London,  Bagster  and  Sons,  12mo. 


LUTHER'S  VERSION.  697 

The  point  on  which  the  confusion  of  imperfect  or  careless 
scholarship  so  often  makes  its  blunders  is  brought  out  clearly 
by  Dr.  Robinson  when  he  says :  "  The  substantive  of  the  pre- 
dicate ofte7i  expresses  not  what  the  subject  actually  is,  but  what 
it  is  like,  or  is  accounted  to  be ;  so  that  eimi  may  be  rendered  to 
be  accounted,  etc." 

Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  in  his  note,  in  his  translation  of  Lange's 
Matthew,  says :  "  The  exact  nature  of  the  relation  "  (expressed  by 
the  copula)  "  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  pre- 
dicate," that  is,  does  not  depend  upon  any  mutations  of  mean- 
ing in  the  copula,  and  this,  he  says,  "  is  an  acknowledged  law 
of  thought  and  language."  He  adds:  "It  is,  perhaps,  more 
correct  to  say  that  the  figure  in  these  cases  does  not  lie,  as  is 
usually  assumed,  in  the  auxiliary  verb  esti,  but  either  in  the 
subject,  or  more  usually  in  the  predicate."*  Kahnis,  as  we 
have  seen,  acknowledges  that  his  new  view  can  find  no  support 
in  the  copula,  and  says,  very  correctly :  "  From  the  copula  'is' 
the  figurative  no  more  than  the  literal  can  be  proven,  in  the 
proposition.  The  copula  allows  of  no  change  of  meaning. 
Those  who  say  that  '  is '  is  equivalent  to  signifies,  mean  to  say 
that  either  the  subject  or  predicate  of  a  proposition  is  to  be 
taken  figuratively. "f 

Because  of  this  very  inflexibilit}^  of  meaning  in  the  copula 
"  is,"  the  translations  which  desert  the  direct  arrangement  of 
the  subject,  copula,  and  predicate,  drop  the  "  is,"  and  merge 
the  whole  thought  in  one  complex.  In  this  case  the  pretender 
to  knowledge  is  apt  to  be  drawn  into  the  fiillacy  that  the  words 
which  have  the  locality  of  the  "  is  "  translate  the  "  is ; "  whereas, 
in  fact,  they  translate,  in  whole  or  part,  the  subject  or  predi- 
cate. Let  us  take  Luther's  version  to  illustrate  L„ther'8  ver. 
this.  Where  "  is  "  stands  in  the  original  in  various  "o°- 
combinations,  Luther's  version  has  upwards  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty  renderings,  and  yet  "  is  "  has,  through  the  whole, 
its  one  fixed  sense :  all  the  diversities  arising  from  the  connec- 
tion of  the  "is"  —  none  from  the  ''is"  itself.  Thus  Gen. 
xxvii.  12  (Heb.) :  "  I  shall  be  in  his  eyes  as  a  deceiver  ;  "  Author- 
ized Version  :  "I  ohoXl  seem  to  him  as,"  etc.;  Luther:  "And 

*  Lange's  Matthew,  471.  f  Dogmat.  I.  G17. 


698  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

shall  be  esteemed  (geachtct)  before  him,"  etc.  Does  the  Author 
ized  Version  mean  to  translate  "  is  "  by  "  seem;  "  or  does  Luther 
mean  to  translate  it  by  "  esteemed  "  ?  Not  at  all ;  but  in  both 
cases  the  complete  idea  "  to  be  in  his  eyes  rt^,"  is  expressed  in 
the  more  indirect  form,  and  it  must  be  assumed  that  "  is  "  is 
perfectly  literal  in  its  meaning,  in  order  that  the  complex  idea 
may  be  reached.  Jacob  must  really  and  literally  be  as  a  de- 
ceiver to  justify  the  statement  that  he  will  be  esteemed  as  such. 
AVe  are  not  aware  of  an  instance  in  which  Luther  uses  "bedeu- 
ten  "  where  "is"  occurs  in  the  original.  In  Ezek.  xlvi.  17 
(Heb.) :  "  It  shall  be  to  him  to  the  year  of  liberty  ;  "  Authorized 
Version :  "  It  shall  be  his  ;  "  Luther :  ''  He  shall  possess  (be- 
sitzen)" ;  not  that  "  is  "  means  to  possess,  but  that  to  be  to  him, 
or  be  his,  does  mean  to  possess.  The  pronoun  is  involved  in 
the  translation.  Deut.  xxviii.  13  :  "  Thou  shalt  be  above  only  ; " 
Luther :  "  Hover  above  "  (Schweben).  The  adverb  is  involved. 
Isaiah  xv.  6 :  "  There  is  no  green  thing ; "  "  There  grows  " 
(wiichset).     The  subject  conditions  the  translation. 

So  inflexible  is  the  substantive  copula,  that  "  is  "  may  be 
T  „    .,,    ,       w^ritten  in  a  central  column,  and  the  increnuity  of 

Innexiiiiechar-  '  :r>  %/ 

acter  of  the  cop-  man  may  be  defied  to  write  a  rational  subject  on 
the  one  side  of  it,  and  a  rational  predicate  of  that 
subject  on  the  other  side  of  it,  to  connect  which  shall  require 
the  addition  of  any  word  whatever  to  the  "  is,"  or  the  substi- 
tution of  any  other  word  for  it.  Furthermore,  we  may  add  to 
the  word  "  is  "  such  qualifying  terms  as  will  most  distinctly 
assert  that  it  is  to  be  understood,  literally  speaking,  without 
metaphor,  dropping  all  symbolical,  allegorical,  or  figurative 
language,  and  it  shall  thereby  only  the  more  eftectually  answer 
as  proof  that  in  the  very  cases  of  dreams,  allegories,  and  para- 
bles, and  such  like,  as  are  cited  to  show  a  departure  from  its 
literal  force,  that  literal  force  is  actually  —  if  such  a  thing  be 
possible  —  intensified.  "Is"  is  the  great  transmuter  of  the 
figurative  into  the  literal. 


Seven  ears 

The  leaven  of  thePbarisees 

The  two  women 

The  seed 


IS,  are 

dro]'ping  symbol 
"  allegory 

"  figure 

literally  speaking 


seven   years. 

hypocrisy. 

tne  two  covenants. 

the  word. 


JtEDUCTIO  AD  ABSURDUM.  699 

The  "  is  "  is  just  as  literal  in  a  metaphor  as  in  the  plainest 
and  most  prosaic  sentence.  Those  who  deny  this  show  that 
they  do  not  see  the  real  point.  The  seven  ears  literally  are 
seven  years,  though  the  seven  ears  are  not  literal  ears,  hut 
dream-ears.  If  they  were  literal  ears,  they  could  not  be  years. 
The  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  literally  is  hypocrisy,  but  the  leaven 
of  the  Pharisees  is  not  literal  leaven  ;  if  it  were,  it  could  not  be 
hypocrisy.  The  two  women  literally  are  the  two  covenants, 
but  the  two  women  are  not  literal  women,  but  allegorical 
women.  As  natural  women  they  could  not  be  covenants.  The 
seed  literally  is  the  word,  but  the  seed  is  not  literal  seed,  other- 
wise it  could  not  be  the  word  —  it  is  Gospel-seed.  J^ow,  in  the 
case  of  metaphorical  leaven,  seed  or  bread,  there  is  a  metaphor 
-to  drop,  but  in  the  case  of  literal  leaven,  seed,  or  bread,  there 
is  no  metaphor  to  drop ;  hence  seven  natural  ears  of  corn  can- 
not be  seven  years,  nor  can  wheat  or  rye  be  the  word,  nor 
baker's  bread  be  Christ's  body.  "  This  is  My  body  "  can  mean 
■but  one  thing,  so  far  as  the  is  is  involved :  This  literally  is  My 
body.  If  there  is  a  metaphor,  it  must  lie  in  the  word  "  body." 
Is  it  Christ's  literal  body  which  is  meant  ?  If  the  body  which 
is  given  for  us  be  Christ's  literal  body,  then  the  sentence 
can  mean  only  one  thing:  This  literally  is  My  literal  body. 
When  we  say  "  the  "  Church  is  Christ's  body,  we  mean  that 
the  Church  literally  is  Christ's  body  —  literally  is  that  which 
is  called  Christ's  body  by  the  apostle.  Then  the  question, 
Is  there  a  metaphor?  means.  Is  literal  body  meant?  The 
answer  here  is,  l^o ;  it  is  the  assembly  of  believers  in  Christ. 
If  the  apostle  had  written.  The  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ 
which  was  crucified,  he  would  have  written  nonsense.     Why  ? 

It  seems  incredible  that  on  a  basis  so  slight  should  have 
rested  the  opposition  of  millions,  for  centuries,  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church.  The  whole  thing  is  capable  of  a  reductio  ad 
absurdum.  If  "is"  means  ''is  a  symbol  of,"  then  Reductioadab. 
the  right  way  for  our  Lord  to  have  announced  s'^r^^"™- 
the  doctrine  of  a  true  presence  would  have  been  to  say:  "  This 
is  not  My  body  ; "  which  would  mean,  "  This  is  not  a  symbol 
of  My  body,"  the  inference,  of  course,  being  that  as  it  is  not  a 
symbol  of  the  body,  it  is  the  body  itself.     On  this  style  of 


700  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

interpretation,  we  are  to  go  through  the  Xew  Testament,  and 
whatever  it  asserts  "  is,"  we  are  to  declare  is  not,  but  is  only  a 
symbol ;  and  whatever  it  asserts  is  not,  we  are  to  declare  is  not 
a  symbol,  and  therefore  the  reality.  God  is  not  a  Spirit,  but 
is  the  symbol  of  a  Spirit ;  and  they  be  no  symbols  of  gods  which 
are  made  with  hands,  and  are,  of  consequence,  real  gods.  .God 
hath  chosen  things  which  are  not  symbols  to  bring  to  naught 
things  that  are  symbols  —  that  is,  lie  has  chosen  the  things 
that  are,  to  bring  to  nothing  the  things  that  are  nothing 
already.  0  glorious  interpretation  !  throwing  into  the  shade 
the  idea  of  the  sceptic  who  wished  to  take  all  the  ''  nots  "  out 
of  the  Commandments,  and  put  them  into  the  Creed — the 
matchless  canon  which  covers  all  speech  —  the  simple  canon : 
whatever  is,  is  not,  and  whatever  is  not,  is. 

"Naught  is  everything,  and  everything  is  naught." 

As  around  the  words  of  our  Lord,  uttered  by  His  own  lips, 
or  breathed  into  Ilis  apostles  by  His  Spirit,  the  controversy  has 
gathered,  so  in  those  words  alone  can  the  solution  of  their  own 
mystery  be  found.  The  words  themselves  are  a  perfect  rule  of 
faith,  and  if  they  have  not  brought  the  whole  Church  to  a 
unity,  it  is  because  not  all  have  studied  them  enough  in  the 
right  spirit.  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  making  a  revelation  to 
man  b}^  language,  of  necessity  subjected  His  own  words  to  the 
laws  of  lanoruao-e ;  and  if  the  whole  nominal  Church 

IIow   the  cun-  O        o     ' 

troversy  is  to  be  of  Christ  evcr  agrees  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucha- 
decided.  ^^^^^  ^1^^  agreement  will  be  reached  under  the  ordi- 

nary aid  of  the  Spirit,  by  the  right  application  of  the  laws  of 
language  to  the  inspired  words.  The  most  vital  question  in 
the  controversy  is,  indeed,  one  to  which  even  now  the  Eastern 
Church,  the  unreformed  Western  Church,  and  the  purified 
Church  of  the  West  — the  Lutheran  Church  — return  the  same 
answer.  The  doctrine  of  the  objective  presence  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  is  the  faith  of  a  vast  major- 
ity in  Christendom  now,  as  it  has  been  from  the  beginning ; 
and  mischievous  as  is  the  error  of  transubstantiation,  it  still 
leaves  the  foundation  of  the  Eucharistic  mystery  undestroyed, 
while  the  rationalistic  opposition  destroys  the  foundation  itself. 


GRAMMATICAL  AND  RHETORICAL  FIGURES.     701 

But  rationalism  itself  cannot,  without  doing  violence  to  the 
acknowledged  ordinary  laws  of  language,  read  into  the  words 
of  the  Supper  a  metaphorical  sense.  Handle  these  words  of 
our  Lord  as  holdly,  construe  them  from  as  low  a  level  as  those 
of  ordinary  men,  still  no  metaphor  can  he  found  in  them.  This 
assertion  we  hope  to  prove  hy  a  careful  investigation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  metaphor,  which  w^e  shall  reduce  to 
thetical  statements,  and  endeavor  to  ilUistrate.  We  shall  try 
to  present  the  rhetoric  of  the  metaphor  in  the  relation  it  bears 
to  its  logic. 

I.  The  metaphor  belongs,  according  to  a  distinction  made  by 
some  writers,  to  the  rhetorical  figure,  as  distinguished  from  the 
grammatical  figure.  The  distinguishing  difference  between  the 
rhetorical  figure  and  the  grammatical  is  that  the  rhetorical  is 
based  upon  an  ideal  relation,  the  grammatical  upon  a  real  one, 
or  what  is  believed  to  be  such.  To  say,  He  keeps  j. Grammatical 
a  ffood  table,  this  purse  is  gold,  this  cup  is  coflfee,  ^^^    Rhetorical 

®  .  .  •       I    (•  Figures. 

this  bottle  is  wme,  is  to  use  a  grammatical  figure  ; 
for  the  relation  of  the  subject  to  the  predicate  is  that  of  real 
conveyance.  There  is  a  real  purse  and  real  gold,  a  real  cup 
and  real  coffee,  a  real  bottle  and  real  wine  ;  and  the  figure  turns 
simply  upon  the  identification  of  the  thing  conveying  with  the 
thing  conveyed,  both  being  real,  and  the  thing  conveyed  being 
communicated  in  some  real  respect  by  means  of  the  thing 
conveying. 

Again,  we  say  of  particular  books  of  the  Bible :  This  book  is 
Isaiah,  this  book  is  John.  This  is  a  grammatical  figure,  for 
the  relation  of  authorship  is  real  on  which  the  identification 
rests.  There  is  a  real  book,  written  by  a  real  Isaiah,  a  real 
John,  and  hence  we  give  the  name  of  the  author  to  his  work. 
So  we  say:  Here  is  my  Milton,  take  down  that  Shakspeare, 
my  Burke  is  in  twelve  volumes,  I  have  read  Homer  through ; 
or  of  pictures:  This  is  a  Raphael,  this  is  a  Salvator  Rosa,  this 
is  a  copy  from  Titian,  this  is  a  Canova.  Is  your  Madonna  a 
Murillo  or  a  Michael  Angelo?  All  these  are  grammatical 
figures,  for  they  imply  a  real  relation  between  the  author  or 
painter  who  produces  and  the  book,  or  work  of  art,  produced. 

Again,  we  say  :  His  pen  is  able,  his  pencil  is  artistic ;  mean- 


702  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

iiig  that  the  writing,  of  which  the  pen  is  the  instrument,  the 
picture  which  is  painted  by  the  pencil,  have  these  qualities. 

Again,  we  say  of  a  portrait  or  a  statue :  This  picture  is  Wash- 
ington, this  statue  is  Napoleon.  The  figure  is  grammatical, 
for  the  identification  is  based  upon  a  real  likeness.  We  can 
say.  This  picture  is  meant  for  Washington  ;  but  it  is  not  Wash- 
ington—  it  is  no  more  Washington  than  it  is  any  other  man, 
that  is,  the  identification  lacks  the  reality  of  likeness. 

Again,  we  say  :  His  brain  is  clear,  his  hand  is  ready  ;  because 
of  a  real  relation  between  the  thought  and  its  organ,  the  brain 
—  the  energy  and  its  organ,  the  hand. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  figures  which  may  be  called  gram- 
matical. The  one  is  Metoxomy,  based  upon  a  real  relation 
between  cause  and  effect,  or  of  subject  and  adjunct ;  the  second, 
Synecdoche,  based  upon  a  real  relation  of  the  whole  and  its 
parts,  or  of  the  genus  and  its  species.  The  question  here  is 
not  whether  the  words  of  the  Supper  contain  a  grammatical 
figure,  but  whether  they  contain  a  rhetorical  one  —  not  w^iether 
there  is  in  them  a  metonomy,  or  a  synecdoche,  but  whether 
there  is  in  them  a  metaphor  ? 

II.  Rhetorical  figurative  expressions,  under  w^hatever  part 
of  speech  they  are  couched,  or  however  modified  in  form,  pre- 
suppose a  starting  proposition  which  may,  ordinarily,  be  easily 

II  Metaphors  i^^duced  to  a  uouu  subjcct,  connected  by  the  copula 
reduced  to  propo-  "is  "  with  a  uouu  predicate.  The  word  of  God  is 
"' '°°'''  sharp,  cutting  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and 

spirit,  implies  :  God's  word  is  a  sword.  Man  flourishes  in  the 
morning,  in  the  evening  he  is  cut  down,  and  witliereth :  Man  is 
a  flower.  The  righteous  grows  in  majesty,  his  roots  spread 
forth  by  the  river  of  life,  and  his  fruits  fail  not:  The  righteous 
man  is  a  tree.  To  this  simplest  form  the  words  of  the  Institu- 
tion are  reduced,  if  they  are  metaphorical:  This  (bread)  is  My 
body. 

III.  In  a  metaphor,  in  the  form  of  a  noun  subject,  connected 
III.  Metaphor  ^y  t^^^  substantive  copula  with  a  noun  predicate, 

always   in   the  tlie  mctaplior  (dicai/s  lies  in  the  predicate^  never  in 

predicate.  ,  ,  . 

the  subject. 
1.  This  is  so  clear  in  the  ordinary  arrangement  of  metaphori- 


Noun  /Subject. 

Copula 

God's  word 

is 

All  flesh 

u 

Herod 

a 

The  usurer 

u 

The  slanderer  of  the  dead 

u 

METAPHOR  ALWAYS  IN  THE  PREDICATE.       703 

cal  propositions  of  this  class,  in  which  the  suhject  comes  first, 
that  no  one  can  dispute  it.  We  will  present  a  few  illustrations 
in  a 

TABULAR    VIEW. 

Nou7i  Predicate. 
a  sword. 

grass. 

a  fox. 
a  leech. 
a  hyena. 

In  all  these  propositions,  in  which  the  simple  and  usual  form 
of  the  metaphor  is  presented,  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the 
metaphor  lies  in  the  predicate. 

2.  The  principle  holds  equally  good  —  though  an  unculti- 
vated reader  may  not,  perhaps,  as  instantly  and  readily  see  it 
■ — in  the  inverted  arrangement  of  poetical  style,  in  which  the 
predicate  comes  first :  as,  for  example,  if  we  say :  A  sword  — 
is  God's  word  ;  grass  —  is  all  flesh  ;  a  fox  —  is  Herod,  the  sub- 
ject and  predicate  are  precisely  the  same  as  before.  It  is  still 
God's  word  that  is  the  sword,  not  the  sword  that  is  God's 
word,  and  so  with  the  others.  There  is  no  new  proposition  ; 
there  is  a  mere  change  in  the  order  of  the  old  one. 

3.  The  principle  holds  good  —  though  it  requires  yet  a  little 
more  reflection  to  see  it  —  when  the  words  which  expressed 
subject  and  predicate  recur  in  an  inverted  order,  with  a  new 
proposition  as  the  result.  For  example,  in  the  sentence,  "  Love 
is  heaven,  and  heaven  is  love,"  there  are,  undoubtedly,  tico 
propositions, — not  one  proposition  with  two  arrangements,  as  in 
the  examples  under  2.  "  Love  "  has,  under  one  genus,  two 
specific  senses  in  both  propositions,  and  in  the  first,  heaven  is 
the  predicate^  and  means  exquisite  happiness,  and  in  the  second 
it  is  the  subject,  and  means  the  estate  of  angels  and  glorified 
men.  The  first  proposition  means  that  love,  such  as  is  felt  by 
our  race  for  each  other,  is  exquisite  happiness  ;  the  other  means 
that  the  heavenly  estate  of  angels  and  the  glorified  is  heaven, 
indeed,  because  of  the  love  they  there  cherish  and  the  love 
they  there  receive. 


704  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

4.  The  principle  holds  good,  even  in  a  case  in  which  we  seem 
to  assert  that  the  predicate  ought  to  he  the  subject  —  the  sub- 
ject the  predicate.  "  You  say,  the  slanderer  is  a  serpent ;  nay, 
rather  say  the  serpent  is  a  slanderer."  Here,  undoubtedly, 
there  are  two  propositions,  not  a  change  of  order  in  one  proposi- 
tion. In  the  first,  slanderer  is  the  subject,  and  is  literal,  ser- 
pent is  the  predicate,  and  is  metaphorical ;  in  the  second,  ser- 
pent is  the  subject,  and  is  literal,  and  slanderer,  the  predicate, 
is  metaphorical,  precisely  as  our  rule  asserts.  The  force  of  the 
change  turns  on  the  thought :  You  speak  of  the  serpent  as  that 
whose  venom  supplies  the  metaphor  which  intensities  our  sense 
of  the  venom  of  the  slanderer ;  but,  in  fact,  the  venom  of  the 
slanderer  is  that  terrible  thing  which  intensifies  our  sense  of 

X  the  venom  of  the  serpent.     Such  examples,  then,  do  not  con- 
tradict the  rule,  but  are  very  striking  evidences  of  its  truth. 

5.  The  inflexible  character  of  this  rule  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  if  the  noun  which  was  the  metaphorical  predicate  be  actu- 
ally made  the  subject  of  a  proposition,  the  instant  result  is  non- 
sense. Thus:  My  flesh  is  bread,  has  a  clear  sense;  Bread  is 
my  flesh,  if  it  be  a  mere  inversion  of  order,  with  the  subject 
and  predicate  unchanged,  has  the  same  sense,  a  little  less  clear 
and  popular  in  the  expression  ;  but,  Bread  is  ray  flesh,  if  bread 
be  the  true  subject,  is  nonsense.  Here  applies  what  Ivahnis 
has  so  miserably  misapplied,  in  his  argument  on  the  Supper : 
Bread,  as  such,  cannot  be  the  flesh  of  Christ ;  and  in  metaphor, 
because  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  bread,  it  is  impossible  that  bread 
should  be  the  flesh  of  Christ. 

AVe  can  say  that  a  modest  gv'l  is  a  violet,  but  not  that  a 
violet  is  a  modest  girl ;  a  feeble  man  is  a  bulrush,  but  a  bulrush 
is  not  a  feeljle  njan  ;  a  politician  is  an  eel,  but  an  eel  is  not  a 
politician  ;  truth  is  a  lamp,  but  a  lamp  is  not  truth  ;  God  is  a 
rock,  but  a  rock  is  not  God ;  the  Devil  is  a  lion,  but  a  lion  is 
not  tlie  Devil ;  the  promises  are  manna,  but  manna  is  not  the 
promises ;  Christ  is  a  lamb,  but  a  lamb  is  not  Christ ;  a  gay 
woman  is  a  butterfly,  but  a  butterfly  is  not  a  gay  woman  ;  a 
proud  man  is  a  peacock,  but  a  peacock  is  not  a  proud  man  ; 
a  church  rebuilt  is  a  phoenix,  but  a  phcenix  is  not  a  rebuilt 


METAPHOR  ALWAYS  IN  THE  PREDICATE.       705 

church ;  a  drunkard  is  a  perfect  fish,  but  a  perfect  fish  is  not  a 
drunkard. 

From  all  this  it  follows  irresistibly  that  if  there  be  a  meta- 
phor in  the  words  of  the  Supper,  it  lies  in  the  noun  " /vo^/y," 
which  is  the  confessed  predicate.  The  friends  of  the  metaphor 
are  compelled  by  the  laws  of  language  to  maintain  the  proposi- 
tion :  This  literal  bread  literally  is  something  which  is  meta- 
fhorically  styled  the  ''body  of  Christ  which  is  given  for  us." 
It  is  impossible  that  the  proposition  should  be :  The  body  of 
Christ  which  is  given  for  us  is  something  which  is  metaphori- 
cally styled,  This  bread  :  first,  because  they  themselves  declare 
that  the  This  bread  is  literally,  not  metaphorically,  so  styled ; 
and  second,  if  it  were  not  so,  because  bread  is  the  subject,  and 
cannot  involve  the  metaphor,  body  is  the  predicate,  and  must 
involve  the  metaphor,  if  there  be  one.  So  (Ecolampadius  con- 
tended at  the  be2:innino;,  and  so  Kahnis  contends  now.  The 
latest  opposition  to  the  true  view  grants  that  the  received  argu- 
ment on  its  own  side  has,  for  nearly  three  centuries,  rested  on 
a  palpable  fallacy.  Kahnis  picks  up  what  Zwingli  threw  away, 
and  ends  where  (Ecolampadius  begun.  So  far  as  this  one  point 
is  concerned,  to  wit,  that  if  there  be  a  metaphor  it  must  lie  in 
the  predicate,  (Ecolampadius  and  Kahnis  are  right  —  so  far 
Luther  agreed  with  (Ecolampadius,  and  Zwingli  diflfered  from 
them  both.  Zwingli  deserved  the  severest  terms  applied  to 
him  by  Luther,  for  failing,  in  so  unscholarly  a  manner,  to  see 
so  obvious  a  point,  and  the  long  line  of  Zwingli's  followers 
ought  to  be  held  accountable  before  the  judgment  seat  of  all 
earnest  theological  investigators  of  every  school,  for  the  sloth- 
ful manner  in  which  they  acquiesced  in  so  palpable  an  error. 
Right  or  wrong  in  itself,  the  current  Zwinglianism  rests  on  an 
assumption  which  is  demonstrably  false  and  preposterous. 

IV.  The  Subject  in  a  metaphor  is  always  the  primary  ob- 
ject of  thought:  it  is  that /or  which  the  predicate  and  copula 
are  brought  in.*     "  Christ  is  the  morning  star :  "  Christ,  the 

*"The  result  which  a  spoken  trope  produces  in  the  mind  of  the  hearer  is  an 
image  of  the  primary  object  under  the  change  of  aspect  caused  by  its  being 
viewed  from  the  side  of  the  secondary  object;  and  the  emotion  which  is  excited 
is  consequent  on  this  step."     Spalding  :  Rhetoric,  Enc.  Brit,  xix.,  132, 
45 


706  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

subject^  is  the  primary  object,  and  only  to  mark  his  majesty  is 
the  predicate,  "  morning  star,"  brought  in  at  alL  If  the  words 
of  the  Institution  are  metaphorical,  the  "  bread,"  as  the  sub- 
ject, is  the  primavj/  ohjcct^  and  the  words  are  uttered  for  the 
sake  of  telling  us  what  the  bread  is,  and  the  body  is  brought 
in  in  a  secondary  way.,  to  clear  up  the  perception  of  the  characr 
ter  of  the  bread.  The  body  and  blood  are  brought  into  the 
Supper  for  the  bread  and  wine's  sake,  not  the  bread  and  wine 
for  the  sake  of  the  body  and  blood. 

V.  This  principle  involves  also  that  the  'primary  ohjcd  in  a 
metaphorical  proposition  is  always  the  subject.  In  the  ordi- 
nary construction  of  sentences  the  subject  comes  first,  the  pre- 
dicate last.  But  on  this  principle  the  inverted  order  will  not 
obscure  to  us  a  perception  of  the  real  subject.  "  An  open  sepul- 
chre is  their  throat, "  (Rom.  iii.  13) :  throat  is  the  subject, 
and  in  Luther's  Version,  and  the  King  James',  is  put  first. 
"  The  head  of  every  man  is  Christ,  the  head  of  the  woman  is 
the  man,  the  head  of  Christ  is  God,"  (1  Cor.  xi.  3).  Christ, 
man,  God,  are  the  subjects  in  the  three  propositions.  In  Lu- 
ther's Version  they  come  first.  "  He  that  soweth  the  good 
seed  is  the  Son  of  man."  Subject:  Son  of  man.  "  The  field 
is  the  world:  "  ''  world  "  is  the  subject ;  and  so  through  that 
passage  (Matt.  xiii.  37-40)  the  devil  is  the  enemy,  the  end  of 
the  world  is  the  harvest,  the  angels  are  the  reapers.  The  pre- 
dicate is  placed  before  the  subject,  in  the  explanation  of  a  para- 
ble, because  the  object  of  the  explanation  is  to  show  how  those 
predicates  already  mentioned  fit  the  subject,  which  now  first 
comes  into  expression.  A  parable  rests  on  a  metaphorical 
proposition  whose  subject  is  not  expressed. 

If  the  words  of  the  Institution  be  metaphorical,  and  if  the 
primary  object  in  it  be  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  they  must, 
of  necessity,  be  the  sidyect  of  the  proposition.  Now  they  are 
the  primary  object,  but  they  are  not  the  subject.  Therefore 
the  words  are  not  metaphorical.  As  the  subject  in  the  words 
is  expressed,  they  are  not  of  the  nature  of  a  parable. 

VI.  In  a  metaphor  the  subject,  considered  in  itself,  is  related 
to  the  predicate,  considered  as  metaphorical — as  a  whole  is 
related  to  a  part,  or  the  greater  to  tlie  less  ;  the  subject  expresses 


METAPHOR.  V07 

the  ichole  thing,  the  metaphorical  predicate  limits  the  mind  to 
one  part  or  aspect,  either  specific  or  generic,  of  that  whole- 
*'  Christ  is  a  sun."  Here  Christ,  the  subject,  expresses  the 
whole  being,  Christ,  and  after  it  might  follow  a  statement  of 
everything  that  Christ  is :  the  predicate  limits  the  mind  to  the 
one  aspect  of  that  whole  —  Christ  as  the  source  of  heavenly 
illumination,  that  is,  to  a  part  of  what  He  is.  And  this  holds 
good  even  when  the  predicate,  in  itself,  as  literal.,  is  greater 
than  the  subject ;  as,  for  example,  the  sentence :  "  My  lover  is 
my  God."  Here  still,  lover,  in  itself,  expresses  everything  that 
a  lover  is,  while  the  term  "  my  God,"  as  metaphorical,  expresses 
simply  one  part  or  aspect  of  the  emotion  by  which  he  stands 
related  to  one  person. 

If  the  Eucharistic  proposition  be  metaphorical,  the  bread, 
as  a  whole,  is  the  subject.  The  metaphorical  predicate,  the 
body,  limits  the  mind  to  this  bread  in  one  aspect.  To  what 
aspect  of  bread  is  bread  limited  by  calling  it  the  "  body  of 
Christ"?  The  bread  is  a  whole,  the  body  a  part.  What 
part  ?  The  bread  is  the  greater,  the  body  the  less.  In  what 
respect  ? 

VII.  In  the  resolution  of  metaphors  into  literal  terms,  the 
following  principles  are  worthy  of  note : 

1.  In  metaphor,  there  is  a  change  of  the  ordinary  significa- 
tion of  the  word.  In  metaphor,  "  fox  "  is  changed  from  its 
ordinary  signification  of  a  particular  animal,  and  means  a  man 
of  craftiness  ;  "  rock  "  means  a  support  and  sta}^ ;  a  "  lion  " 
means  a  hero ;  "  N^apoleon  "  means  a  man  of  distinguished 
ability  and  success.  But  in  the  Supper  there  is  no  change  of 
meaning  in  the  words.  This  means  this,  bread  means  bread, 
and  body  means  body. 

2.  This  change  of  ordinary  signification  is  based  on  some 
similitude,  or  analogy,  between  the  thing  named  in  the  new 
term  and  the  thing  to  which  that  new  term  is  applied.  Herod 
is  a  fox,  because  an  analogy  to  his  craftiness  is  found  in  the 
cunning  of  the  fox.  It  is  not  the  man,  as  a  man,  with  whom 
the  animal,  as  an  animal,  is  compared,  but  it  is  alone  craftiness 
in  the  animal  w^hich  is  compared  with  craftiness  in  the  man. 
Our  God  is  a  rock,  because  the  mind  traces  an  ideal  resem- 


708  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOK. 

blance  between  the  physical  firmness  of  a  rock  and  the  morai 
firmness  of  God.  IN'ow  if  there  be  a  metaphor  in  the  Supper, 
it  must  be  based  upon  some  ideal  similitude  between  bread  and 
Christ's  body.  The  bread  is  called  Christ's  body  because  there 
is  some  respect  in  which  that  bread  resembles  the  body.  But 
the  theory  which  accepts  the  metaphor  makes  the  body  resem- 
ble the  bread,  which  is  to  subvert  the  metaphor.  It  is  not  the 
fox  that  is  Herod,  the  rock  that  is  God,  nor  the  body  that  is 
bread  ;  but  Herod  is  the  fox,  God  is  the  rock,  and  the  bread  is 
the  body. 

3.  In  metaphor,  the  similitude  is  always  ideal^  either  essen- 
tially or  in  the  mode  of  regarding  it.  When  this  similitude 
is  a  real  one,  both  in  essence  and  degree,  there  is  no  metaphor  ; 
and  hence  a  real  similitude  is  expressed  in  different  terms  from 
a  metaphorical  similitude.  We  say,  A  cat  is  like  a  tiger,  be- 
cause of  certain  points  of  real  physical  likeness.  There  is  like- 
ness, but  no  metaphor.  We  say.  This  cat  is  a  tiger,  she  is  so 
fierce.  Here  there  is  metaphor ;  for  though  there  is  a  real 
likeness  between  a  cat  and  tiger,  and  the  fierceness  of  both, 
yet  it  is  the  fierceness  of  the  tiger,  as  idealized,  that  is  imputed 
to  the  cat.  Or  we  may  again  say.  This  cat  is  like  a  tiger ;  but 
if  we  wish  to  guard  against  the  misconception  that  it  is  a  real 
similitude  between  the  whole  subject  and  the  whole  predicate, 
we  mean,  we  have  to  add  "  in  fierceness."  *'  Hegel  is  like  Na- 
poleon "  might  mean  that  he  bore  a  real  resemblance,  physical 
or  otherwise,  to  him ; "  Hegel  is  a  ISTapoleon  "  is  open  to  no  such 
misunderstanding.  "  The  bread  is  like  the  body  of  Christ " 
may  mean,  grammatically,  as  well  that  there  is  a  real  likeness 
as  an  ideal  one.  Hence,  to  clear  the  phrase  with  the  resolution 
proposed,  it  would  be  necessary  to  add  to  the  words:  "This 
bread  is  like  the  body  of  Christ  "  some  such  phrase  as  "  in  nu- 
tritiveness,"  or  whatever  may  be  assumed  to  be  the  matter  of 
analogy. 

4.  Hence  it  is  a  clumsy  and  inadequate  mode  of  resolving  a 
metaphor  simply  to  substitute  "  is  like  "  for  "  is,"  because  it 
leaves  it  an  unsettled  question  whether  the  likeness  is  real  or 
metaphorical.  It  both  weakens  and  obscures  the  thought.  If 
for  "  John  the  Baptist  is  Elijah  "  we  substitute  "is  like  Elijah," 


METAPHOR.  709 

it  may  mean  like  him  in  looks,  or  like  him  in  various  unde- 
fined respects,  and  the  sentence  is  at  once  robbed  of  vigor  and 
clearness.  If,  to  make  it  clear,  we  add  "  in  the  analogies  of  the 
spirit  distinctive  of  Elijah,"  it  is  not  more  clear,  and  is  far  less 
strong  than  just  as^it  stood  :  ''  John  is  Elijah."  If  the  words 
of  the  Supper  be  metaphorical,  their  obvious  force  is  weakeiud 
not  stnmgtlmied,  obscured  not  cleared,  by  substituting  "  is  like  " 
for  "is."  But  those  who  contend  for  the  metaphorical  sense 
think  their  cause  strengthened  by  this  substitution.  If  this  be 
so,  there  can  be  no  metaphor.  They  are  met  by  the  horns  of 
a  dilemma.  If  "  is  like  "  cannot  be  inserted  with  advantage  to 
clearness,  then,  in  the  admission  of  their  own  argument  hith- 
erto, there  can  be  no  metaphor ;  if  "  is  like  "  caji  be  inserted 
with  advantage  to  the  sense,  then,  as  we  have  just  shown, 
there  can  be  no  metaphor. 

5.  Furthermore,  while  in  the  case  of  a  naked,  unqualified, 
metaphorical  noun  in  the  predicate  "is  like"  may  merely 
weaken  the  sense,  in  the  case  of  a  metaphorical  noun  qualified 
by  terms  which  link  it  with  higher  associations  "is  like" 
destroys  the  sense.  We  may  say:  God  is  a  rock,  and  then 
God  is  like  a  rock  ;  but  if  we  say,  God  is  the  rock  of  our  salva- 
tion, we  cannot  interpret :  God  is  like  the  rock  of  our  salvation. 
The  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ ;  the  Church  is  like  the  body 
of  Christ ;  but  not  the  Church  is  like  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ.  If  we  could  say:  Bread  is  body,  and,  consequently, 
Bread  is  like  body,  it  would  not  follow  that  we  could  say : 
Bread  is  like  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  which  was  given  for  the 
remission  of  sins. 

6.  The  RESOLUTION  of  a  metaphor,  by  making  "  is  like  "  the 
copula,  weakens  it,  at  best,  but  the  term  "  signify  "  does  not 
resolve  the  metaphor  at  all.  Where  "  signify  "  can  be  substi- 
tuted as  a  copula  for  "  is,"  there  is  no  metaphor.  Leo  (the 
word)  signifies  a  lion,  that  is,  leo  in  one  language  and  lion  in 
another,  are  verbal  signs  of  the  same  thing,  but  Achilles  does 
not  signify  a  lion.  The  seed  of  the  parable  is  ideal  seed,  not 
natural ;  it  does  not  signify  the  word,  but  that  seed  is  the  word, 
and  the  word  is  that  seed.  Natural  seed  may  be  used  as  the 
symbol  of  gospel  seed,  that  is,  of  the  parable  seed  ;  but  the  para- 


710  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

ble  seed  is  not  the  symbol  of  anything  else,  but  is  itself  the 
thing  symbolized  by  the  natural  seed  —  it  is  the  word.  If  we 
could  say,  as  in  a  parable:  This  bread  signifies  the  body  of 
Christ,  it  would  mean  that  real  bread  is  the  symbol  of  ideal 
bread,  to  wit,  the  communion  bread,  and  that  the  thing  ideal- 
ized in  the  term  communion  bread  is  not  the  symbol,  but  the 
thing  symbolized,  and  is  identical  with  the  body.  It  is  a  strik- 
ing illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  extremes  of  exegetical 
absurdity  meet,  that  to  make  a  parallel  between  the  language 
of  the  Supper  and  of  a  parable,  would  end  practically  in  an 
error  akin  to  transubstantiation.  It  would  imply  the  identity 
of  the  thing  expressed  ideally  in  the  word  bread,  with  the 
thing  expressed  literally  in  the  word  body.  It  would  leave,  as 
the  only  literal  elements  in  the  Supper,  body  and  blood  —  no 
real  bread,  no  real  cup  ;  just  as  in  the  parable  of  the  sower,  the 
only  literal  elements  left  are  the  Son  of  man,  the  word,  the 
world,  the  hearers. 

7.  Nothing  is,  in.  itself.,  metaphorical  or  symbolical.  A  lamb 
as  a  lamb,  a  lion  as  a  lion,  is  not  a  symbol.  ]N"either  the  real 
lion,  nor  the  real  lamb,  is  symbolical.  It  is  the  ideal  lion  or 
lamb  that  is  symbolical.  The  mind  makes  it  so.  The  mind 
recognizes  and  accepts  the  analogy  on  which  the  metaphor  or 
symbol  rests,  and  thus  makes  the  symbol.  Hence  the  bread, 
as  such,  can  be  no  more  a  symbol  of  the  body  than  it  can  be  the 
body  itself.  Bread,  as  bread,  is  no  symbol,  but  a  literal  reality. 
The  moment  we  fix  the  fact  that  a  piece  of  bread  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  piece  of  bread,  apart  from  the  general  analogies  of 
all  bread,  we  entirely  exclude  that  bread  from  any  possible  rela- 
tion to  the  symbol  or  metaphor.  Christ  could  say.  The  bread 
which  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  but  not,  the  baker's  bread,  the 
wheat  bread,  which  I  will  give,  is  My  flesh. 

8.  A  symbolical  dream  and  a  parable  differ  essentially  only  in 
the  manner  in  which  they  are  brought  before  the  mind.  The 
dream  is  a  parable  pictured  in  sleep,  and  the  parable  is  a  sym- 
bolic dream  stated  in  words.  Suppose,  with  no  antecedent 
dream,  Joseph  to  have  been  inspired  to  say :  The  kingdom  of 
Egypt  is  like  unto  seven  cars  of  corn,  etc.,  we  would  have,  by 
a  mere  change  of  the  manner  of  presentation,  a  parable ;  or  if 


METAPHOR.  711 

the  Son  of  God,  with  the  same  intent  as  in  a  parable,  had,  in 
a  dream,  presented  to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  a  man  going 
forth  to  sow,  or  fishermen  casting  a  net,  there  would  have  been 
a  symbolic  dream.  Peter's  vision  can  be  shaped  as  a  parable: 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  to  a  great  sheet,  which  was  let 
down,  etc.  In  the  explanation  of  a  dream  or  parable,  the  subject., 
though  it  may  come  last  in  the  order  of  words,  is  the  real,  literal 
thing  which  the  dream  or  parable  is  meant  to  set  forth.  The 
seven  years  are  the  subject  of  the  dream's  explanation ;  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  Son  of  man,  are  the  subject  of  the 
explanation  of  the  parable,  and  what  God  hath  cleansed  is  the 
subject  of  Peter's  vision.  In  the  explanation  of  dream  and  par- 
able the  subject  is  literal,  and  the  predicate  purely  ideal ;  not  a 
literal  thing  symbolizing,  but  an  ideal  thing  symbolized.  In 
the  Supper,  the  »ubjf^ct  is  literal,  and  the  predicate  is  literal. 
There  is  no  dream-bread  or  parable-bread,  no  dream-body  or 
parable-body,  i^o  matter  how  you  arrange  subject  and  predi- 
cate in  it,  you  can  find  no  parallel  with  the  dream  or  parable. 
9.  As  in  metaphor  the  figure  turns  upon  the  predicate  con- 
sidered not  in  its  natural  character,  but  only  as  an  ideal  with  a 
particular  quality  made  prominent,  the  same  noun  predicate 
may  be  used  with  very  different  senses.  Either  the  terms  or 
associations  will  show,  therefore,  in  every  case,  what  quality  in 
the  predicate  is  the  basis  of  a  good  metaphor.  Achilles  is  a 
lion,  for  he  is  brave  ;  the  Devil  is  a  lion,  for  he  destroys  ;  Christ 
is  a  lion,  for  He  is  majestic.  Dan  shall  be  a  serpent  in  the  way, 
for  he  shall  be  sagacious  in  strategy  and  resistless  in  attack ; 
the  Devil  is  a  serpent,  for  he  is  the  sagacious  perverter  of  men 
—  he  is  that  ''old  serpent "  which  seduced  Eve.  ^N'ow,  as  a 
metaphorical  predicate,  the  body  of  Christ  fails  to  exhibit  the 
particular  quality  in  which  the  metaphor  lies.  It  explains 
nothing,  but  needs  explanation.  What  quality  of  Christ's 
body  is  imputed  by  metaphor  to  the  bread  ?  The  most  con- 
flicting replies  have  been  made  to  the  question  by  those  who 
insist  that  there  is  a  metaphor.  One  says  it  is  the  quality  of 
nourishment;  Christ's  body  nourishes,  therefore  bread  is  called 
by  its  name.  Another  says:  Christ's  body  is  broken,  and,  as 
the  bread  is  broken,  it  is  called  the  body  ;  and  so  on  through  a 


712  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

range  of  conjectures  ever  increasing,  and  destined  to  increase, 
because  the  solution,  in  this  direction,  rests  upon  lawless  con- 
jecture—  it  gets  no  light  from  the  text,  and  its  sole  limit  is 
that  of  the  ingenuity  of  man. 

10.  The  name  in  the  predicate  in  the  metaphor  is  given  to 
the  subject,  so  that  we  can  continue  to  conceive  of  the  subject 
in  all  the  aspects  suggested  by  the  name  of  the  predicate  within 
the  whole  range  of  the  ideal  analogy.  Any  adjective  or  verb 
that  suits  the  predicate  can  so  far  be  applied  to  the  subject. 
The  righteous  man  is  a  tree ;  God  has  planted  that  tree  by  the 
river  of  water  ;  his  leaf  is  ever  green  ;  his  fruit  is  more  and  more 
abundant ;  his  root  is  struck  more  and  more  firmly  into  the  soil ; 
if  his  branches  are  lopped  off,  it  is  to  insure  greater  vigor ;  his 
shelter  is  pleasant  to  those  who  rest  beneath  it.  ^ow  give 
the  name  of  the  predicate,  "  body,"  to  the  subject,  ''  bread," 
and  attempt  to  carry  out  the  figure  in  this  way  —  apply  to 
the  bread  adjectives  and  verbs  derived  from  the  body  —  and 
the  impossibility  of  a  metaphor  is  at  once  apparent.  We  can 
neither  say,  with  a  wider  range.  This  bread  is  Christ's  body, 
and  has  sufiered  for  us,  was  crucified  for  us,  has  ascended  to 
heaven;  nor,  with  a  narrower  range,  This  bread  is  Christ's 
body,  and  nourishes  us  with  heavenly  strength  —  he  that  eats 
of  it  shall  live  forever  —  Christ  gave  this  bread  for  the  life  of 
the  world.  Take  John  vi.,  where  there  is  a  metaphor  under- 
lying, in  which  Christ's  flesh  is  the  subject  and  literal,  in 
which  bread  is  the  predicate  and  metaphorical,  and  contrast 
it  with  the  words  of  the  Supper,  where  the  theory  in  question 
admits  that  bread  is  the  subject  and  literal,  and  maintains  that 
body,  the  predicate,  is  metaphorical.  JSTow  take  Christ's  flesh 
as  bread,  and  see  how  the  terms  literally  appropriate  to  bread 
adapt  themselves  metaphorically  to  the  flesh ;  then  go  to  the 
Supper,  take  bread  as  Christ's  body,  and  see  whether  the  terms 
literally  appropriate  to  Christ's  body  adapt  themselves  meta- 
phorically to  the  bread,  and  you  cannot  fail  to  see  that  there 
can  be  no  metaphor  here. 

11.  All  figures  lyroperly  rhetorical  rise  upon  the  common  root 
of  the  metaphor,  and  are  reducible  ultimately  to  metaphorical 
propositions,  that  is,  to  propositions  in  which  there  is  a  subject 


METAPHOR.  713 

with  a  metaphorical  predicate,  capable,  for  the  most  part,  of 
being  linked  to  it  by  the  substantive  copula  "  is." 

'«  Though  round  his  breast  the  rolling  clouds  are  spread, 
Eternal  sunshine  settles  on  his  head." 

The  good  man  is  a  mountain.  "  If  he  dare  to  light  on  me, 
I  shall  brush  him  off:"  he  is  an  insect.  "The  state  is  tossed 
on  the  waves  of  civil  strife:"  the  state  is  a  ship.  "The  sun- 
shine of  truth  will  scatter  those  falsehoods:"  truth  is  a  sun; 
falsehood  is  a  cloud.  "The  diapason  closing  full  in  man:" 
nature  is  an  instrument  of  music ;  man  is  the  completion  of 
nature's  music.  "  From  the  Qgg  to  the  apple,  life  is  insipid  :" 
life  is  a  banquet.  Hence  all  metaphorical  language  is  but  the 
evolution  of  the  primary  idea.  It  results  from  the  ideal  iden- 
tification of  the  subject  and  predicate  throughout^  so  far  as  that 
identification  is  priinarili/  involved  in  the  simple  proposition. 

Hence,  after  directly  connecting  the  subject  in  a  metaphorical 
proposition  with  its  predicate,  we  can  go  on  to  apply  to  the 
subject  the  qualities  of  the  predicate.  The  good  man  is  a 
mountain,  and  though  clouds  are  about  his  breast,  eternal  sun- 
shine is  on  his  head.  The  officious  intermeddler  is  an  insect, 
and  if  he  dare  to  light  on  me,  I  will  brush  him  off.  The  state 
is  a  ship,  and  is  tossed  on  the  waves  of  civil  strife.  Can  we 
say.  This  bread  is  my  body,  and  is  given  for  you  ;  this  wine  is 
my  blood,  and  has  been  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins?     If  we  cannot,  there  is  no  metaphor. 

12.  In  didactic  metaphors,  whose  object  is  not  so  much  to 
ornament  as  to  make  clear  and  vivify  the  meaning  to  the  sim- 
ple learner,  predicates  are  chosen  whose  range  of  qualities  is 
smallest,  in  fact,  if  possible,  confined  to  one  quality.  The 
favorite  popular  metaphors  turn  very  much  upon  the  disposi- 
tion to  confine,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  analogy  to  a  single 
quality  in  a  single  predicate.  A  bee  and  a  wasp  both  sting, 
yet  if  we  say  of  a  woman,  "  She  is  a  bee,"  the  first  impression 
made  is  that  she  is  industrious  ;  if  we  say,  "  She  is  a  wasp," 
the  hearer  supposes  we  attribute  ill-temper  to  her.  A  bee  is  as 
provident  as  an  ant,  but  when  we  wish  to  find  an  image  of 
providence,  we  take  the  ant.     A  hare  is  both  swift  and  timid, 


714  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

yet,  when  we  call  a  man  a  hare,  every  one  at  once  supposes  us 
to  mean  that  he  is  timid.  An  elephant  is  sagacious  as  well  as 
ponderous,  but  when  we  say  that  a  man  is  an  elephant,  we  are 
not  thought  to  compliment  his  sagacity,  but  to  allude  to  his 
hugeness  of  body.  The  torch  was  once  an  image  of  illumina- 
tion, now  it  is  an  image  of  destruction.  We  speak  of  the  lamp 
of  knowledge,  but  of  the  torch  of  discord.  The  spider  has 
many  points  of  metaphor,  but  in  popular  language  his  image  is 
narrowed  to  the  mode  in  which  he  ensnares  his  prey.  The  ass 
has  had  a  varied  fortune  in  metaphor.  Homer  compares  his 
hero  to  an  ass  ;  yet,  from  being  the  image  of  enduring  bravery, 
of  strength,  of  contentment,  of  frugality,  of  meekness  under 
wrong,  the  ass  has  come  to  be  almost  exclusively  the  image  of 
stupidity.  The  dog  once  went  into  metaphor  on  the  strength 
of  his  worst  points  ;  he  now  generally  goes  in  on  his  best.  Once 
the  question  was  put :  Is  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do 
this  thing  ?  IsTow  institutions  of  trust  paint  upon  their  sign  the 
dog,  who,  as  he  watches  the  chest,  is  an  image  of  the  institu- 
tion in  the  incorruptible  fidelity  it  claims  for  itself.  If  there 
be  a  didactic  metaphor  in  the  Lord's  Supper  —  and  such  it 
would  be  most  likely  to  be  if  there  were  any  —  it  would  select 
the  body  of  Christ  as  the  predicate,  because  of  one  familiar  qual- 
ity which  enabled  it,  more  than  any  other,  to  make  clear  and 
vivify  the  meaning  of  the  bread.  Will  any  one  pretend  that 
such  is  the  ease  ? 

13.  In  a  metaphor  the  adjectives  and  verbs  appropriate  to 
the  predicate  are  applied  to  the  subject.  The  adjectives  and 
verbs  appropriate  to  the  suhject  in  a  metaphor  cannot  be  applied 
to  the  iiredicate,  "  The  cliild  is  a  flower  ;  it  opens  its  petals  to 
the  dawning  sun  ;  it  strikes  its  root  into  the  green  earth  ;  it  is 
tender,  sweet,  fragile."  We  cannot  correctly  apply  in  this 
same  metaphor  any  of  the  qualities  of  the  child  to  the  flower, 
or  mingle  the  attributes  of  the  subject  with  those  of  the  pre- 
dicate. We  can  simply  and  solely  consider  the  subject  under 
the  metaphorical  conditions  of  the  predicate.  We  cannot  say  : 
"  The  child  is  a  flower ;  it  strikes  out  its  roots  in  the  nursery  ; 
that  flower  once  had  a  father  and  mother,  but,  alas!  the  chill 
wind  came,  and  now  the  flower  is  an  orphan."     If,  therefore. 


METAPHOR.  715 

there  were  any  warrant  for  the  textual  reading  on  which  is 
based  the  interpretation:  "This  broken  bread  is  my  broken 
body,"  it  would  imply  that  the  body  is  metaphorically  broken, 
and  that  because  the  predicate  body  is  identical  in  the  meta- 
phor with  the  bread,  we  can  say  that  the  bread  is  broken. 
But  it  is  granted  by  all  that  the  breaking  of  the  bread  is  literal. 
It  is  said  to  be  broken,  because,  and  only  because,  it  is  broken. 
Hence  the  a  'priori  presumption  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the 
external  evidence  that  the  true  reading  of  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  does 
not  embrace  the  word  "broken."  If  the  word  there  were 
genuine,  there  can  be  no  metaphorical  relation  between  the 
breaking  of  the  bread  and  the  breaking  of  the  body ;  but  if 
there  were,  it  would  produce  an  idea  exactly  the  reverse  of 
that  which  the  advocates  of  the  metaphor  desire.  They  wish 
the  breaking  of  the  bread  to  figure  the  breaking  of  the  body, 
but,  in  fact,  the  breaking  of  the  body  would  figure  the  break- 
ing of  the  bread.  If  I  say :  "  Hope  is  a  broken  reed,"  it  is  the 
"broken  "  of  the  predicate  which  we  refer  to  the  subject,  not 
the  reverse.  It  is  not  that  hope  is  broken,  and,  therefore,  we 
make  it  the  image  of  a  broken  reed  ;  but  it  is  the  reed  that  is 
broken,  and  we,  therefore,  make  it  the  image  of  the  broken 
hope.  The  words  are  not :  My  body  is  this  broken  bread,  but 
(following  the  reading) :  This  (bread)  is  my  broken  body. 

14.  A  verbal  symbol  is  simply  a  raetaphorical  predicate, 
which  is  fixed  in  one  determinate  sense  by  general  agreement 
and  understanding.  It  must  conform  to  all  the  laws  of  meta- 
phor. When  the  symbolic  idea  of  the  verbal  symbol  is  em- 
bodied in  a  representation,  or  associated  with  a  natural  object, 
apparent  to  the  senses,  a  symbol  proper  is  the  result.  Thus, 
when,  for  the  first  time,  it'was  said :  "  The  brave  man  is  a  lion," 
there  was  but  a  metaphor.  When  the  authority  derived  from 
a  general  use  and  agreement  made  the  lion,  by  preeminence, 
and  exclusively,  the  metaphorical  representative  of  courage, 
the  lion  became  the  symbol  of  courage ;  and  the  carved  or 
painted  lion  becomes  the  symbol  proper  of  courage.  Before  a 
symbol  can  be  assumed  in  language,  there  must  be  presupposed 
a  metaphorical  predicate,  and  a  fixing  of  it  by  general  agree- 
ment in  one  only  sense.     When  there  can  be  no    metaphor. 


716  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

there  can,  a  fortiori^  be  no  symbol.  When  we  say:  "The 
lamb  is  the  symbol  of  Christ,"  it  implies,  first,  that  the  lamb  is 
a  metaphorical  predicate  of  all  gentle  human  beings ;  second, 
that  because  of  the  preeminent  gentleness  of  Christ,  God  has 
authoritatively,  in  his  word,  fixed  the  predicate  as  descriptive 
of  his  Son.  Hence,  when  the  artist  paints  the  lamb  in  sa- 
cred symbolism,  we  at  once  know  he  means  Christ ;  he  repre- 
sents the  lamb  bleeding,  it  is  Christ  the  Sufi:erer  he  means; 
the  lamb  bears  the  banner,  it  is  Christ  triumphant. 

15.  A  TYPE  is  a  person  or  thing  divinely  foreappointed  as  the 
symbol  of  a  person  or  thing  not  yet  revealed.  It  involves  a 
divine  metaphor  with  the  subject  reserved  for  a  future  state- 
ment. The  type  is  related  to  the  antitype  as  the  predicate  to 
the  subject.  The  lamb  is  a  symbol  of  Christ.  The  paschal 
lamb  is  a  type  of  Christ.  For  the  same  reason,  as  in  the  ex- 
planation of  the  parable  and  dream,  the  predicate,  in  the  reso- 
lution of  the  type,  is  often  placed  first.  We  can  say  "  Christ 
is  our  paschal  lamb,"  or  "  Our  paschal  lamb  is  Christ,"  but  in 
either  case  Christ  is  the  subject. 

16.  The  descriptive  terms  we  add  to  a  metaphorical  noun  to 
make  its  nature  apparent  must  be  such  as  to  imply  that  it  is 
metaphorical,  not  such  as  would  apply  to  it  as  literal.  Instead 
of  saying,  "  His  wit  is  a  dagger,"  we  may  enlarge  by  saying, 
"  His  wit  is  the  dagger  of  an  assassin  ;  he  plunges  into  the 
heart  of  every  man  who  ofiends  him ; "  but  we  cannot  say ; 
"His  wit  is  a  dagger  purchased  at  Smith's  hardware  store." 
We  do  not  say:  "  The  law  of  God  is  a  lamp  of  brass  with  a 
cotton  wick; "  "  our  life  is  the  flowing  river  Schuylkill,  which 
runs  into  the  Delaware ; "  "  he  was  clothed  with  the  mantle 
of  humility,  made  of  blue  cloth."  But  to  the  words  body  and 
blood  are  added  just  such  terms  as  suit  the  literal  body  and 
blood  alone.  It  was  the  literal  body  which  was  given  —  the 
literal  blood  which  was  shed  for  us  and  for  many  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  Contrast  the  words  which  in  1  Cor.  xi.  speak  of 
Christ's  literal  body  with  those  which  in  chap.  xii.  speak  of 
His  metaphorical  body.  His  Church.  Take  the  words  :  This 
is  my  body  which  is  for  you  —  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord  —  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body  —  which  are  found 


''BREAD"   METAPHORICALLY  USED.  717 

in  chap,  xi.,  and  lay  them  side  by  side  with  the  terms  m 
which,  in  chap,  xii.,  Christ's  body,  the  Church,  is  spoken  of; 
the  many  members  —  the  foot,  the  hand,  the  eye,  the  ear  —  now 
ye  are  the  body  of  Christ  and  members  in  particular,  —  and 
note  how  striking  the  difference.  And  in  the  Oriental  cast  of 
thought,  fcir  more  than  in  the  Western,  exists  this  very  ten- 
dency to  luxuriate  in  the  details  of  metaphor.  The  abstinence 
from  anything  of  the  sort  in  the  case  of  the  Supper,  which,  if 
it  be  metaphorical  at  all,  involves  the  metaphor  of  metaphors, 
is  very  significant. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  longer  at  the  bearing  of  these 
principles  on  the  Lord's  Supper: 

When  the  word  bread  is  used  metaphorically,  or  with  a  figu- 
rative allusion,  it  is  a  well  established  emblem  of  i.-iJread-met- 
food  or  of  nutrition  — intellectual,  moral  or  spirit-  ^^pi-^ic^^ny  u^^^^d. 
ual.  As  the  fox  is  the  emblem  of  cunning,  the  dove  of  gentle- 
ness, the  rock  of  firmness,  so  is  natural  bread  the  emblem  of 
supernatural  or  spiritual  nutriment.  The  proposition  "bread 
is  Christ's  body,"  taken  figuratively^  would  make  bread  the 
literal  thing,  and  Christ's  body  the  emblem  of  it,  and  w^ould 
have  to  mean,  "  as  Christ's  body  is  supernatural  or  spiritual 
food,  so  bread  is  natural  bodily  food."  The  proposition, 
"  Christ's  body  is  bread,"  on  the  other  hand,  makes  Christ's 
body  the  literal  thing,  and  bread  the  emblem  of  it,  and  would 
mean,  "  as  bread  is  natural  bodily  food,  so  is  Christ's  body 
supernatural  or  spiritual  food."  If  it  be  said.  Bread  is  like 
Christ's  body,  the  question  at  once  arises,  In  what  respect  ? 
What  is  the  well-known  property  of  our  Lord's  body  to  which 
we  find  a  likeness  in  bread  ?  If  the  reply  is,  Christ's  body  is 
sacramentally  eaten,  and  bread  is  like  it,  in  that  it  is  eaten 
naturally,  we  would  reply :  The  eating  of  Christ's  body  is  a 
recondite  and  imperfectly  understood  thing,  —  why,  then,  do 
you  take  it  as  the  illustration  of  something  so  simple  and  well 
understood  as  the  eating  of  bread?  Why  illustrate  the  simple 
by  the  obscure?  Why  illustrate  it  at  all?  Yet  more,  how- 
ever, if  the  reply  is,  Christ's  body  is  broken,  and  bread,  like  it, 
is  broken,  we  would  reply.  It  is  not  characteristic  of  bread  to 
be  broken ;  thousands  of  things  equally  with  it  are  broken  : 


718  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

moreover,  Christ's  body  is  not  naturally  broken,  but  bread  is  ; 
hence,  instead  of  illustrating  the  supernatural  by  the  literal, 
you  are  illustrating  the  literal  by  the  supernatural.  What  you 
want  to  fit  in  with  your  theory  is,  that  Christ  should  have 
said.  Take,  eat,  my  body  is  like  this  bread ;  or,  the  breaking 
of  my  body  is  like  the  breaking  of  this  bread.  But  on  this 
theory  he  exactly  reverses  the  statement,  lie  docs  not  say, 
^ly  body  is  this  ;  but,  This  is  my  body.  Here,  too,  is  one  of 
the  sharp  and  noticeable  distinctions  between  the  thought  in 
John  vi.  and  the  thought  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  John  vi. 
he  says  :  "  My  flesh  is  bread  ;  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed."  Here 
he  says:  "  This  is  my  body."  If  it  were  lawful  to  supply  the 
word  "  bread,"  bread  would  here  be  the  subject,  as  it  is  there 
the  predicate.  But,  whether  bread  or  the  breaking  of  bread 
be  considered  as  that  with  which  the  body  or  breaking  of  the 
body  is  to  be  compared,  it  would  necessarily,  to  sustain  the 
theory  of  metaphor,  or  symbol,  be  the  p)^edicate.  But  it  is  here 
manifestly  the  subject^  as  even  the  great  mass  of  nn-Lutheran 
expositors  are  forced  to  admit.  But  if  bread  or  breaking  of 
bread  be  the  subject,  it  is  compared  with  the  body,  or  breaking 
of  the  body :  that  is,  Christ  is  supposed  to  illustrate  the 
natural  and  familiar  action  by  the  remoter  and  less  intelligible 
—  which  is  absurd. 

Schwenckfeld  *  saw  whither  this  false  theory  would  drive 
him,  to  wit,  that  it  would  suppose  that  our  Saviour,  consider- 
ing the  eating  of  his  body  as  the  familiar  thing,  and  the  eating 
of  the  bread,  the  thing  that  required  illustration,  which  is  so 
manifestly  false,  that,  to  avoid  it,  he  proposed  to  write  the 
words  thus:  My  body  is  this  bread,  to  wit,  is  spiritual  bread, 
as  this  is  natural  bread.  If,  now,  the  critic's  view  could  be 
taken  as  to  the  force  of  '•  is,"  to  wit,  that  it  means  "  is  like," 
he  plunges  headlong  into  the  diflaculty  Schwenckfeld  tried  in 
vain  to  escape.  Even  if  there  were  a  metaphor,  it  would  not 
have  a  parallel  in  the  phrase,  "  Louis  Xapoleon  is  a  fox  ;  "  but 
in  this :  "  A  fox  is  Louis  Xapoleon  ; '  that  is,  a  fox  is  like 
Louis  Xapoleon  ;  or,  a  rock  is  God  ;  or,  grass  is  flesh  ;  or,  a 
door  is  Christ. 

*The  same  view  was  maintained  at  a  later  period  by  John  Lang. 


THE   ''BREAKING''    OP  BREAD,  ETC.  719 

Just  as  plain  is  it  that  the  phrase  ^'' breaJcing  bread,"  if  figu- 
rative, is  the  well-established  emblem  not  of  the  violent  kill- 
ing of  a  human  being,  but  of  supernatural  or  spiritual  dis- 
tribution or  communication.  Why  is  bread  broken  '/  In  order 
to  its  being  given,  taken,  and  eaten.  Hence,  when  we  speak 
figuratively  of  6rert/a7?^  bread,  we  mean  this:  the  higher  thing, 
of  which  the  bread  is  the  emblem,  is  given,  taken, 
and  eaten  in  some  sense  corresponding  with  the  fig-  in-  of  Bread"  ii« 
ure.  Hence,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  inconceiv-  '^^^'^''^I'l^""^'^'- 
able,  if  the  breaking  of  bread  have  a  figurative  reference,  that 
this  reference  should  rest  on  the  breaking  of  bread,  not  as  the 
means  of  its  distribution,  in  order  to  be  taken  and  eaten,  but  on 
the  violent  tearing  of  it  into  pieces,  as  symbolical  of  crucifixion, 
[f,  therefore,  the  sole  connection  were,  as  the  critic  imagines, 
between  breaking  the  body,  the  symbol  would  still  contemplate 
the  bread  which  we  break  as  the  communication  of  Christ's  body. 

From  these  indisputable  facts,  as  also  from  the  sacred  text, 
it  is  most  clear  that,  as  the  "  breaking  "  of  the  bread  m  The  Break- 
in  the  Supper  was  distributive,  that  is,  the  natural  '"s  of  Bread  and 

^^  .  '  '  .  the      distributive 

means  necessary  to  its  distribution  or  communica-  character  of  tho 
tion  to  the  taker  and  eater  of  it  as  natural  food,  so,  ^''^^^'■" 
by  consequence,  the  breaking  of  Christ's  body,  to  which  it 
would  point,  would  be  the  communication  of  that  body  as 
supernatural  food.  The  analogy  is  not  this :  That  as  bread 
may  be  considered  as  figuratively  killed  by  breaking  it  with 
the  hand  into  small  pieces,  so  was  Christ's  body  literally  killed 
by  piercing  it  with  the  nails  and  the  spear,  but  is  most  clearly 
this :  That  as  bread,  in  order  to  be  naturally  taken  and  eaten, 
must  be  physically  communicated,  (to  which  the  natural  break- 
ing was  necessary,)  so  the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  in  order  to 
be  sacramentally  taken  and  eaten,  must  be  supernatu rally  com- 
municated. 

The  critic  has  said  of  the  "  resemblance  in  the  fact  that  just 
as  he  had  broken  the  bread,  so  his  body  would  be  ly.  The 
broken,"  etc.,  that  this  is  "  the  only  one  stated  by  "Breaking"  of 

'  \,,,     .  IT  T  -,1         Bread  not  indica- 

Christ  himself      in  regard  to  the  bread  and  the  tive  of  the  mode 
holy.     If  we  look  at  the  sacred  text,  we  find  that  «-   «'''•    ^<^'"^''' 

....  .  .  .  death. 

the  critic  is  at  issue  with  it  on  three  vital  points  : 


720  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

1.  Our  Saviour  does  not  say  "  icould  he  broken,"  •'  would  he 
shed,"  but  uses  the  fy^esent participle  in  both  cases :  "  is  broken," 
*'  is  shed."  If  the  critic  insists  that  the  present  participle  has 
a  future  sense,  he  is  bound  to  give  reason  for  his  departure 
from  the  letter.  Till  the  critic  proves  this,  he  has  against  him 
the  very  letter  of  our  Lord's  word,  testifying  that  he  did  not 
compare  that  present  breaking  of  the  bread  with  the  future 
breaking  of  his  body. 

2.  The  sacred  text,  if  we  assume  that  the  lans^uao-e  is  fio-ura- 
tive,  gives  no  warrant  for  the  idea  that  the  breaking  of  Christ's 
body,  and  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  refer  as  their  distinctive 
object  to  the  mode  by  which  his  life  was  terminated,  but  both 
refer  to  the  impartation  or  communication  of  the  body  and 
blood,  as  the  applying  organs  of  the  redemption  wrought 
through  them.  In  other  words,  they  are,  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
contemplated  distinctively  in  their  sacramental  application,  and 
in  their  sacrificial  character  only  as  the  sacrificial  is  to  be  pre- 
supposed, either  in  fact  or  in  God's  unchanging  purposes,  as 
the  necessary  antecedent  a!id  ground  of  the  sacramental.  Bread 
is  broken  in  order  to  be  communicated,  and  wine  is  poured  out 
in  order  to  be  imparted.  If  these  acts,  then,  are  symbolical  as 
regards  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  they  contemplate  the 
one  as  broken,  the  other  as  shed,  in  order  to  communication 
and  impartation ;  and  then  there  is  a  parallel  in  the  words  of 
Paul :  The  cup  of  blessing,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ ;  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  his  body  ? 

3.  Matthew  says  our  Lord  brake  the  bread,  but  does  not  think 

it  necessary  to  record  at  all  that  our  Lord  said.  My 
Evangelists  con-  body  hroJceii  —  that  is,  according  to  the  false  theory, 
fnToMhe "Bread  ^^  fuilcd  to  uotc  the  ouly  resemblance  which  our 
with  the  Break-  Lord  has  authorized.  Mark  is  guilty,  on  the  same 
ingo  tie  o  J.  ^i^gQj,^.^  ^£  ^jjg  same  omission  —  not  a  word  about 
the  breaking  of  the  bread  as  the  point  of  comparison  with  the 
breaking  of  the  body.  Luke  has:  He  brake  it,  and  gave  unto 
them,  and  said  :  This  is  my  body  whicli  is  given  for  you.  ^ot 
a  word  about  the  breaking  as  a  symbol  of  the  crucifixion  ;  but, 
as  if  the  breaking  were  merely  a  necessary  part  of  the  com- 


THE  ''BREAKING''    OF  BREAD,  ETC.  721 

municative  act  ending  in  the  giving ,  eays :  This  is  my  body 
given  for  you.  Is  the  giving  of  a  piece  of  bread  also  an  emblem 
of  the  crucifixion  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  broken  and  given 
are  considered  as  involving  the  same  idea,  and  that  the  force  is 
"  so  broken  as  to  be  given  "?  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  giving  of 
His  body  is  something  which  Christ  himself  does  ;  that  there- 
fore the  sacramental  breaking  or  communication  of  it  is  His 
own  act,  and  that  if  He  symbolizes  any  acts,  it  is  His  own  acts, 
and  not  those  of  His  enemies  ?  Who  does  not  see,  if  we  assume 
a  figure,  that  the  natural  bread  points  to  the  supernatural 
bread,  which  He  tells  us  is  His  body,  and  that  the  natural 
method  by  which  the  natural  bread  is  communicated  points  to 
the  supernatural  method,  by  which  the  invisible  sacramental 
bread,  to  wit,  Christ's  true  body  is  given  ? 

If  in  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  we  accept  the  Textus  receptus,  and  read 
"  broken  for  you,"  the  meaning  of  the  word  broken  is  deter- 
mined by  the  facts  already  stated.  It  is  to  be  harmonized  with 
St.  Luke's  "given,"  and  with  the  omission  of  Matthew  and 
Mark.  But  the  best  text  sustained  by  the  oldest  manuscripts,*  is 
without  the  word,  and  the  editions  of  the  greatest  recent  critics, 
as  for  example  Lachmann,  Tischendorfi",  and  Alford,  omit  it. 
The  attempt,  therefore,  to  show  that  our  Saviour  put  the 
sole  stress  on  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  is  a  com-  ^.j  r^^^  ^^_ 
plete  failure,  as  is  also  the  attempt  to  show  that  the  tempt  to  make 
breaking  contemplates  our  Saviour's  death  in  its  panuiei^^in  ^Ihl 
mode,  and  not  as  the  sacrificial  pre-requisite,  in  the  Bieaidng,  a  faii- 
mmd  of  God,  to  the  sacramental  communication. 


rp 


The  true  view  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that,  although  the 
three  Evangelists  say  of  the  blood :  "  shed  for  you,"  not  one  of 
them  speaks,  nor  does  St.  Paul  speak,  of  the  pouring,  or  shed- 
ding of  wine  at  all ;  which  would  have  been  absolutely  essential, 
had-  the  breaking  partaken,  as  the  critic  seems  to  suppose,  of 
this  pantomimic  character.  If  Christ  had  broken  the  bread  to 
symbolize,  by  that  act,  the  breaking  of  His  body,  He  must  have 
poured  the  wine  to  symbolize,  by  that  act,  the  shedding  of  His 

5^  As  the  Codex    Sinaiticus,  J<.,  4th    century;    Alexandrinus,  A.,  5th  centurj  ; 
Vaticanus,  B.,  4th  century ;  Ephraem  Syri,  C,  5th  century. 
46 


722  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

blood.  So  absolutely  necessary  to  his  new  theory  does  Kahnia 
see  the  shedding  of  the  wine  to  be,  that  he  goes  completely  out 
of  the  sacred  record  to  assume  that  "  the  wine  which  is  poiurd 
out  of  a  large  vessel  into  the  chalice  is  the  blood  which  is  shed 
for  us."  This  is  not  interpreting  Scripture,  but  manufacturing 
it  —  and  the  manufactured  Scripture  directly  contradicts  the  in- 
spired Scripture.  It  is  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless^  not 
the  cup  of  wine  already  poured  and  consecrated  in  the  Supper, 
not  the  skin-bottle  of  pouring  which  we  pour  before  the  Supper, 
which  is  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  It  is  not 
enough  for  Kahnis  to  add  to  St.  Paul  ;  he  feels  himself  forced 
to  contradict  him.  But  Kahnis  is  helpless.  If  the  bread  comes 
into  the  Supper  solely  to  be  eaten,  and  the  breaking  is  but  a 
natural  mean  toward  the  eating,  a  mean  which  can  be  used 
either  before  the  Supper  or  in  it ;  if  the  wine  comes  into  the 
Supper  solely  to  be  drunken,  and  the  pouring  is  but  a  natural 
mean  toward  the  drinking,  a  mean  which  can  be  used  before  or 
in  it,  Kahnis's  theory  of  symbol  goes  by  the  board. 

On  the  very  word,  then,  on  which  the  critic  builds  his  whole 
theory,  it  goes  to  pieces.  It  is  broken  by  "  broken."  Alike  w^hat 
the  four  narratives  say,  and  what  they  omit,  is  decisive  against 
him  — as  their  words  and  their  omissions  stren2:then  the  true 
view,  the  view  of  our  Church. 

The  critic,  as  we  have  seen,  formally  abandons  in  great  stress, 
VII  summar-  ^^  ^^^  iuiportaut  respect,  the  Zwinglian  view  of  the 
of  the  false  mcauing  of  the  word  "  is  "  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
tbcorj.  jj^  acknowledges  that  here  it  does  not  mean  "  sym- 

bolizes, represents."  This  he  does,  apparently,  to  avoid  the 
rock  on  which  we  showed,  and  have  again  shown,  that  the  old 
rationalistic  symbolic  theory  struck  and  split,  as  soon  as  it  was 
launched.  He  concedes  that  the  breads  as  such^  is  not  the  symbol 
of  the  body  of  Christ.  So  much  for  Zwinglianism.  But,  as  he 
goes  on  to  admit,  there  is  a  solitary  point  not  peculiar  to  bread, 
in  wliich  there  is  a  likeness  to  a  solitary  point,  connected  with 
the  history  of  our  Saviour's  body,  but  not  peculiar  to  it.  His 
theory  really  is  this :  The  bread  does  not  here  mean  bread,  but 
the  breaking  of  the  bread.  The  body  of  Christ  does  not  mean 
J  lis  body,  but  the  breaking  of  Ilis  body.     The  critic,  with  hia 


THE  FALSE   THEORY  CHARACTERIZED.         723 

theor}'  or  pronouns,  gets  the  proposition  :  This  bread  (touto 
artos)  is  my  body.  Then,  with  his  theory  of  the  substantive 
verb,  this  is  made  to  mean  :  This  bread  is  like  my  body  ;  then, 
with  the  new  theory  of  metaphor,  bread  means  breaking  of 
bread  ;  body  means  breaking  of  body  ;  and  the  sacred  words 
mean  this :  This  breaking  of  bread  is  like  the  breaking  of  my 
body  broken  for  you,  therefore  take  this  breaking  of  bread  and 
eat  it.  lie  abandons  the  arguinent  on  which  the  faith  of  our 
Church  was  originally  assailed,  and  admits  the  untenableness 
of  the  philology  of  the  anti-Lutheran  rationalism  of  centuries. 
Strange  fallacy,  which  would  make  the  breaking  of  anything, 
whatsoever,  a  title  to  its  being  called  the  Lord's     ,^„^  _  , . 

'  ^  VIII.  The  false 

body,  which  assumes  that  the  bread  as  such,  that  theory  nhaiae- 
is,  as  food,  is  not  the  symbol  of  Christ's  body,  but  *'"''"'*"'■ 
that  the  Lreaking  of  the  bread  is  like  the  hreakiiig  of  the  body. 
This  theory  assumes  that  it  would  be  as  proper  to  affirm  that  a 
broken  paving  -  stone,  or  a  broken  pane  of  glass,  or  a  broken 
dish,  or  a  broken  rope,  is  Christ's  body,  as  that  the  bread  of 
His  supper  is  ;  for  the  parallel  is  between  breaking  and  break- 
ing —  broken  bread  and  broken  body.  But  if  you  concede  that 
it  is  between  bread  and  body,  then  you  are  drawn  to  the 
dreaded  necessity  of  the  true  supernatural  eating  of  the  latter 
as  the  parallel  to  the  true  natural  eating  of  the  former.  How 
pointless,  too,  opening  in  the  lowest  depth  of  Rationalism  itself, 
a  lower  deep,  is  it  to  say  that  the  breaking  of  bread  is  like  the 
breaking  of  Christ's  body,  considering  the  breaking  as  the 
means  of  putting  that  sacred  body  to  death.  Bread  is  an  inani- 
mate thing :  how  can  breaking  it  be  like  the  putting  of  a 
human  being  to  death  ?  Breaking  bread  is  the  very  symbol  of 
quiet  and  peace.  Who  w^ould  dream  of  it  as  an  appropriate 
symbol  of  the  most  cruel  and  ignominious  death  ?  Bread  is  the 
representative  food,  and,  used  in  metaphor,  is  the  symbol  of 
spiritual  or  supernatural  food.  The  breaking  of  bread  is  the 
means  to  giving  it  as  food,  and  taking  it  as  food,  and  as  a  sym- 
bol, the  symbol  of  giving  and  taking  a  higher  food.  Xo  one 
would  dream  of  the  breaking  of  a  piece  of  bread  as  the  symbol 
of  killing  a  human  body  ;  and  if  so  extraordinary  a  symbolic  use 
of  it  were  made,  it  would  require  the  most  explicit  statement,  on 


,724  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

the  part,  of  the  person  so  using  it,  that  such  was  its  intent ;  and 
when  he  had  made  it,  the  world  would  he  amazed  at  so  lame  a 
figure. 

AVe  join  issue,  then,  wnth  this  theory,  and  maintain  that  if 
there  be  a  figure  in  the  words,  the  figure  must  be  this:  that 
the  bread  is  a  figure  of  the  bod}^  of  Christ,  as  the  true  bread  — 
and  the  breaking  of  that  bread,  so  as  to  communicate  it,  a  figure 
of  the  true  conmiunication  of  that  body.  And  thus  our  Lord 
did  not  mean,  in  the  word  "  broken  " — if  he  indeed  used  it  at  all 
—  to  point  to  tbe  process  by  which  His  body  was  killed,  but  to 
His  body  as  the  bread  of  life,  broken  or  given  to  be  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  divine  life  of  the  believer.  If  His  body  be  the 
broken  bread,  it  is  as  the  communication  of  that  body  of  which 
He  says  :    Take^  eat  ;  this  is  my  body  given  for  you. 

Utterly  apart  from  the  divine  majesty  and  the  plenary  out- 
pouring of  the  great  Spirit  of  his  prophetic  office  upon  our 
Lord,  it  is  a  degradation  to  Him  as  the  master  of  words, — 
Himself  the  incarnate  Word  and  revealer  of  the  mind  of  God,  as 
the  One  who  spake  as  never  man  spake,  whose  imagery  com- 
bined, as  they  were  never  combined  in  human  language,  the 
most  exquisite  simplicity  with  matchless  sublimity  and  apj)ro- 
priateness, — it  is  a  degradation  of  our  Lord  to  torture  the  whole 
drift  of  His  words,  so  as  to  make  them  jejune  and  pointless,  as 
the  critic  has  done.  It  sounds  more  like  a  Jewish  taunt,  than 
a  sober  Christian  utterance,  to  say  that,  as  an  appropriate  re- 
presentation of  a  living  body  pierced  b}^  nails  and  spear,  our 
Lord  selected  a  loaf  of  bread,  and  brake  it  to  pieces,  and  said : 
This  bread  is  my  body  —  not  with  allusion  to  the  bread  as  food 
at  all;  not  with  allusion  to  the  breaking  as  the  great  distri- 
Imtive  and  communicative  act,  but  simply  to  the  breaking  as 
a  means  of  destroying.  We  do  not  believe  that  from  the  Insti- 
tution of  the  Supper  to  this  hour  the  mere  act  of  breaking  the 
bread,  as  such,  has  vivified  to  any  human  creature  the  sacrificial 
agony  and  death  of  our  Lord.  We  have  searched  the  records 
of  the  ancient  Church  in  vain  for  such  an  idea:  it  is  not  found 
in  any  of  the  Fathers  whom  we  have  examined.  It  is  modern, 
forced,  and  manifestly  manufactured  for  certain  doctrinal  ends; 
is  in  conflict  with  all  the  laws  of  human  speech;  is  insulting  to 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  EARLIEST  CHURCH.       725 

our  Lord,  and  is  rejected  by  the  best  commentators  of  every 
school,  even  by  some  of  the  ablest  Calvinists,  Zwinglians,  and 
Rationalists  themselves. 

The  antithesis  of  the  purified  Church  Catholic  in  modern 
times  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  Church  Catholic, 
through  its  most  ancient  witnesses,  asserts  the  same  antithesis, 
and  bases  it  upon  the  same  doctrine.  The  Fathers  are  not 
authorities,  but  they  are  witnesses.  The  force  of 
their  testimony  depends  very  much  upon  the  nature  thfeTrTf e  l\ 
of  the  thing  to  which  they  testify,  whether  it  be  ^''"''^• 
something  in  regard  to  which  they  had  ample  opportunities  of 
being  informed.  It  depends  also  upon  its  clearness,  its  har- 
mony with  itself  and  with  the  testimony  of  others.  The  state- 
ments of  a  witness  or  of  a  body  of  witnesses  may  carry  with 
them  a  moral  force  which  is  irresistible.  The  testimony  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  earliest  Church  in  regard  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  carries  peculiar  weight,  because,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  the  meaning  of  the  Lord's  Supper  must  have  been  asked 
for  and  determined  at  once.  It  is  impossible  that  in  the  daily 
communion,  with  which  the  Church  began,  and  the  very  fre- 
quent communion  with  which  the  Church  continued,  there 
should  be  no  settlement  of  the  question.  What  is  the  essential 
character  of  this  Sacrament  ? 

There  are  those  now  who  think  that  the  permanence  of  the 
Supper,  and  the  practical  fruits  of  it,  are  the  only  points  of  im- 
portance about  it  — its  essential  character  may  be  left  out  of 
view.  But  in  fact,  from  the  beginning  to  this  hour,  it  has  not 
been  possible  to  see  why  it  should  be  permanent,  or  what  fruits 
it  is  meant  to  have,  without  understanding  ichat  it  is.  In  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  therefore,  the  essential  character  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  no  matter  of  remote  speculation.  It  came 
up  instantly,  and  came  up  constantly.  There  are  no  two  points 
on  which  we  would  expect  the  witness  of  the  ancient  Church 
to  be  more  prompt  and  decisive  than  on  the  two  Sacraments, 
Baptism  and  the  Supper,  and  the  fact  corresponds  with  the 
anticipation.  On  nothing  is  the  testimony  of  the  primitive 
Church  more  full,  more  clear,  and  more  decisive,  than  on  Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper.     The  testimony  begins  very  early.     The 


726  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

first  important  witness  is  an  Apostolic  Father,  Ignatius,  for 
whom  it  is  claimed  that  he  saw"  our  Lord,  and  who,  heyond 
all  dispute,  was  a  pupil  of  the  Apostles.  He  was  consecrated 
pastor  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  by  St.  Peter,  about  a.  d.  43  ; 
and  was  put  to  death  as  a  Christian  about  a.  d.  107. 

The  importance  of  the  testimony  of  the  early  Church  in 
regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  felt  in  all  the  churches. 
Extremists,  in  the  churches  most  alien  in  their  faith  to  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Fathers,  have  tried  to  torture  their  declarations, 
if  not  so  as  to  teach  their  own  peculiar  views,  yet,  at  least,  so 
as  not  directly  to  contradict  them.  Some,  as  for  example, 
Marheineke,  have  claimed  that  the  three  leading  views  of 
modern  times  all  have  their  representatives  among  the  Fathers. 
In  presenting  the  facts  of  most  importance,  it  may  be  useful  to 
premise  the  following  principles:  — First.  For  the  early  Fathers, 
Principles  to  be  as  merc  thinkers,  we  need  feel  comparatively  little 
prrtingtiieFluh-  regard.  It  is  only  where  they  are  competent  wit- 
*'■«•  nesses  that  we  attach  great  value  to  what  they  say. 

Second.  We  propose  first  to  show,  not  what  was  the  whole  line 
of  patristic  thinking,  but  what  was  the  original  view,  so  early 
as  to  create  a  moral  presumption  that  it  was  formed  not  by 
speculative  thinking,  but  on  the  direct  teaching  of  the  Apostles. 
With  this  as  a  sort  of  patristic  "  Analogy  of  Faith,"  we  shall 
assume  that  the  later  Fathers  agree,  if  their  language  can  be 
fairly  harmonized  with  it.  Third.  The  easiest  and  simplest 
interpretation  of  the  Fathers  is  the  best ;  the  less  use  we  make 
of  the  complex  ideas  and  processes  of  the  scholastic  or  modern 
theology  the  better.  If  we  find  our  faith  in  the  Fathers,  we 
must  not  always  expect  to  find  it  couched  in  the  terms  which 
we  should  now  employ.  It  is  their  faith  rather  than  their  the- 
ology we  are  seeking;  and  we  should  compare  our  faith  with 
their  faith  rather  than  our  dogmatics  with  theirs.  Systematic 
thinking  and  nicely  balanced  expression  are  the  growth  of 
ages  in  the  Church.  We  must  not  suppose  that  the  faith  of 
the  Church  is  not  found  in  a  particular  writer,  because  we  miss 
many  of  its  now  current  phrases.  IS'o  existing  system  of  the- 
ology, and  no  dogmatic  statement  of  a  single  distinctive  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  can  find  its  absolute  fac-simile  in  form  in  the  writ- 


IGNATIUS.  727 

ings  of  tbe  Christian  Fathers  —  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
not  the  doctrine  of  Sin,  not  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  in  a  word,  not  any  doctrine.  The  oak  of  a  thousand 
years  is  not  a  fac-siinile  of  itself  at  a  hundred  years ;  yet  less  a 
fac-siniile  of  the  acorn  from  which  it  grew.  Yet  the  oak  is  but 
the  acorn  developed,  its  growth  is  its  history  ;  and  if  the  bond 
with  its  past  be  broken  anywliere  the  oak  dies.  Fourth.  That 
interpretation,  all  other  things  being  equal,  is  best  which  most 
naturally  harmonizes  all  the  sayings  of  a  particular  Father  with 
each  other,  or  all  the  sayings  of  all  the  Fathers  with  each  other. 
We  have  no  right  to  assume  a  contradiction  in  either  case, 
where  a  harmony  is  fairly  possible.  Fifth.  That  is  the  best 
interpretation  of  the  past  which  most  naturally  accounts  for 
the  sequel.  When  a  doctrine  has  taken  an  indubitable  shape, 
or  even  has  undergone  a  demonstrable  perversion  and  abuse, 
we  are  to  ask  what  supposition  in  regard  to  the  precedent 
doctrine  best  solves  the  actual  development  or  the  actual 
abuse.  Sixth.  We  reach  the  faith  of  a  Father  by  the  general 
drift  of  his  statements,  although  seeming,  or  even  real  con- 
tradictions with  that  general  drift  are  to  be  found  in  his 
writings.  No  man,  perhaps,  is  perfectly  self- consistent.  The 
reader  may  discover  inconsistencies  which  the  writer  himself 
has  not  noticed.  The  mass  of  mankind  hold  very  sincerely- 
views  which  really  involve  a  conflict.  But  in  the  ancient 
Church,  with  the  vast  influx  of  men  of  every  school  of  philoso- 
phy and  of  every  form  of  religious  education  —  with  the  fer- 
ment of  the  wonderful  original  elements  which  Christianity 
brought  into  human  thought  —  with  Christian  science  hardly 
yet  in  existence,  we  w^ould  expect  many  discrepancies,  especially 
where  dogmatic  accuracy  is  required. 

THE    TESTIMONY    OF    ST.  IGNATIUS. 

There  are  three  passages  in  St.  Ignatius  confessedly  bearing 
upon  the   Lord's  Supper.     The  first  is  from  the  i.  Ignatius,  a.d. 
Epistle   to    the   Smyrnians :    ''They  (the   Docetse,  ^^-'^'^■ 
who  denied  that  our  Lord  had  a  true  body)  abstain  from  the 
Eucharist  and  prayer  because  they  confess  not  that  i.TotheSmyr- 
the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  "i-^'s.  §7. 


728  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Christ,  which  (teen)  suffered  for  our  sins,  which  (een)  the 
Father  in  His  inercy  raised  again.  They  then  who  speak 
against  the  gift  (dorean)  perish  while  disputing.  Good  had  it 
heen  for  them  to  keep  the  feast  of  love  ;  agapan),  that  they  might 
rise  again."  Agapan  has  been  translated  "  to  love  it,"  but  the 
better  rendering  seems  to  be  "  to  celebrate  it,"  agapee,  i.  e.,  the 
Lord's  Supper,  taking  its  name  from  the  "  agapee,"  or  "  love- 
feast,"  with  which  it  commenced  in  the  earliest  Church,  as  in 
the  following  paragraph  it  seems  to  be  defined  by  the  terms 
"  agapee  poiein,"  in  the  sense  of  "  celebrating  the  Eucharist." 
The  second  citation  is  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Philadelphians, 

2.Tc,thei>i.ih.-  "Haste  ye  then  to  partake  of  one  Eucharist,  for 
deiphians.  §  4.  thcrc  IS  (or  it  is)  the  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  one  cup  for  the  uniting  of  His  blood  (enosin,)  one 
altar."     The  third  citation  is  from  the  Epistle  to   the   Ephe- 

3.  To  the  Ei.he-  siaus,  ''Breaking  one  bread,  which  is  the  medicine 
6ians.  §20.  Qf  immortality;  the  antidote  that  we  should  not 

die,  but  live  in  Jesus  Christ  forever."  It  is  very  obvious,  that 
taking  these  words  in  their  simple  and  native  force,  they  best 
accord  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  In  t\iQ  first 
place  they  affirm  positively  that  the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh 
(einai  sarka)  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  that  it  is  the  one 
flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  constitutes  it.  Secondly. 
They  distinctly  affirm  that  the  flesh  meant  is  that  which  suf- 
fered for  our  sins,  "which  the  Father  in  His  mercy  raised 
again  ;  "  thus  overthrowing  one  of  the  most  recent  figments  of 
a  very  subtle,  yet  perverse  interpretation,  which,  unable  to 
deny  that  there  is  an  objective  presence  of  Christ  taught  by  the 
Fathers,  alleges  that  His  body  in  the  Eucharist  is  a  body  of 
bread,  or  that  the  bread,  as  such,  is  His  body ;  and  that  the 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  a  blood  of  wine,  that  is, 
that  the  wine  itself  is,  as  such,  Christ's  blood.  Ignatius  dis- 
tinctly testifies  that  the  body  in  the  Eucharist  is  not  a  body 
of  bread,  but  is  the  body  of  that  flesh  which  suffered  for  our 
sins  and  was  raised  from  the  dead.  Ebrard'*  himself  says: 
"  The  fundamental  argument  against  the  possibility  of  a  tropi- 
cal use  of  the  word  'flesh'  in  Ignatius,  lies  in  the  fact  that  he 

*Abendm.  I.  254. 


IGNATIUS.  729 

speaks  distinctly  of  that  very  flesh  which  was  put  to  death 
upon  the  cross,  and  was  raised  in  glory  by  the  Father." 
Thirdly.  The  effects  imputed  to  the  Eucharist  by  Ignatius  are 
entirely  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  of  its  being  a  mere 
memorial  or  a  mere  spiritual  communion.  lie  imputes  to 
it  the  power  of  producing  the  resurrection  to  eternal  life ;  not 
that  he  denies  that  the  wicked  shall  rise  again,  but  that  like 
St.  Paul,  when  he  speaks  of  attaining  unto  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  he  means  the  resurrection  in  its  true  glory,  as  a  rising 
to  eternal  life.  The  medicine  of  immortality,  the  antidote  to 
death,  the  spring  of  life  in  Christ  forever,  can  be  no  other  than 
Christ's  flesh  itself — the  organ  of  His  whole  work.  Kahnis.* 
''  From  these  words  it  follows  with  certainty  that  Ignatius 
regarded  the  consecrated  elements  as  the  media  of  a  Divine 
impartation  of  life,  consequently  as  more  than  bare  symbols  ; " 
and  EBRARDf  admits,  "  When  he  calls  the  Eucharist  a  medium 
of  immortality,  it  is  clear  that  he  was  thinking  not  of  a  bare, 
subjective  memory  of  Christ,  but  of  an  actual  appropriation  of 
Christ  and  of  all  His  graces."  Fourthly,  So  far  from  the  early 
Church,  as  represented  in  Ignatius,  being  indifferent  to  the 
doctrine  held  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  find  that  it 
is  distinctly  marked  as  a  heresy,  practically  resulting  in  the 
eternal  death  of  those  who  held  it,  that  the  Eucharist  is  not 
the  flesh  of  our  Saviour.  Taking  then  the  simple  and  direct 
interpretation  of  Ignatius,  we  find  him  in  perfect  affinity  with 
the  Tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession :  1st,  In  the 
assertion  that  the  true  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  —  that 
which  suffered  and  that  which  was  raised  — is  present  in  the 
Eucharist,  actually  constituting  it.  2d.  That  true  bread  and 
true  wine  are  present.  3d.  That  the  bread  and  wine  given  and 
taken  are  the  means  by  which  the  body  and  blood  are  im- 
parted. When  he  says.  That  the  cup  is  for  the  uniting 
("  enusis  ")  of  Christ's  blood,  the  "  enusis  "  points  distinctly  to 
that  specific  idea  which  Paul  expresses  when  he  says,  The  cup 
is  the  communion  of  Christ's  blood,  and  which  our  Church 
expresses  by  saying  that  the'  blood  is  in,  with.,  and  under  the 
cup.  The  word  ''  enosis  "  is  used  by  the  Fathers  to  indicate  the 
uniting  of  two  things,  and  is  most  frequently  used  for  the  unit- 

*L)ogmat.  II    Vd'o.  f  Abendni.  I.  iJuO. 


730  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

iijo-  of  the  human  and  divine  natures  in  Christ.  Whether  we 
interpret  the  "  enosis  "  here  as  implying  that  the  cup  is  that 
which  unites,  sacramentallj,  blood  with  wine,  or  blood  with 
the  communicant,  by  impartation  and  reception,  the  great 
idea  remains  unchanged,  for  either  of  these  involves  the  other. 
4th.  Even  the  antithetical  part  of  the  Tenth  Article  has  its 
parallel  in  the  condemnation  of  the  Docetoe  for  denying  that 
the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  Christ.  That  Ignatius  teaches 
the  doctrine  of  the  objective  presence  of  the  bod}^  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  Supper  is  shown  among  recent  writers,  by  Engel- 
hardt,  Francke,  Rudelbach,  Semisch,  and  Kahnis. 

THE    TESTIMONY    OF    JUSTIN    xMARTYR. 

The  second  testimony  we  adduce  is  that  of  Justin  Martyr 
IT.  Justin  Mar-  (couvcrtcd  A.  D.  133,  put  to  death  as  a  martyr,  165). 
tyr,  A.D.133.  jf  i\^q  claim  be  doubtful  which  has  been  made  for 
him,  that  he  w^as  a  disciple  of  the  Apostles,  the  other  claim 
may  at  least  be  allowed,  that  he  was  a  man  not  far  from  the 
Apostles  either  in  time  or  virtue.  The  extract  we  make  is 
from  his  Apology.     "  Having  ceased  from  the  prayers,  we  greet 

poiogy,  I.  c.  ^^^  another  with  a  kiss ;  then  bread  and  a  cup 
of  water  and  wine  are  brought  to  him  who  presideth 
over  the  brethren,  and  he,  receiving  them,  sendeth  up  praise 
and  glory  to  the  Father  of  all,  through  the  name  of  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  maketh  at  length  an  Eucharistic 
prayer  for  having  had  these  things  vouchsafed  to  him.  Those 
called  among  us  '  deacons,'  give  to  each  of  those  present  to 
partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  and  water,  over  which  thanks- 
giving has  been  made,  and  carry  it  to  those  not  present ;  this 
food,  ('  trophee,')  is  amongst  us  called '  Eucharist '  (eucharistia), 
whereof  no  one  may  partake  save  he  who  believeth  that  what 
is  taught  by  us  is  true,  and  hath  been  washed  in  that  laver 
which  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  to  regeneration,  and 
liveth  as  Christ  hath  delivered  ;  for  we  do  not  receive  it  as 
common  bread  (koinon  arton)  or  as  common  drink  (koinon 
poma)  ;  but  in  what  way  (on  tropon)  Jesus  Christ  our 
Saviour  being,  through  the  word  (dia  logou)  of  God,  incar- 
nate (sarkopoieetheis,)  had  both  flesh  and  blood  for  our 
salvation,  so   also  have  we  been  tauo'ht   that   the  foud    over 


A 

66,  67 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  731 

which  thanksgiving  has  been  made  by  the  prayer  of  the  word 
(euchees  logon;,  which  is  from  llim — from  which  food  our 
blood  and  flesh  are  by  transmutation  (raetaboleen)  nourished 
(trephontai) — is  (einai)  both  the  flesh  and  blood  (kai  sarka,  kai 
aima)  of  Ilim,  the  incarnate  Jesus  (sarkopoieethentos)." 

Applying  here  the  same  simple  principle  of  interpretation, 
we  And,  Jirst^  that  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  are  the 
sacramental  objects ;  second,  that  they  are  distinguished  from 
the  bread  and  the  wine ;  third.,  that  they  are  so  related  to  the 
bread  and  wine  that  the  reception  of  the  one  implies  the 
reception  of  the  other — there  is  a  sacramental  unity  and  identi- 
fication ;  fourth,  that  this  relation  is  not  one  produced  by  the 
figurative  character  of  bread  and  wine,  as  symbols  of  body  and 
blood,  but  a  relation  subsequent  to  the  consecration  and  pro- 
duced by  it ;  ffth,  that  a  parallel  of  some  kind  is  instituted 
between  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  conjoined  personally  in  His 
incarnation,  and  the  two  elements,  bread  and  body,  cup  and 
blood,  conjoined  sacramentally  in  the  Supper.  Sixth.  The  anti- 
thesis is  implied  when  it  is  said.  That  no  one  may  partake  of 
this  food  among  us  save  he  who  believeth  that  what  is  taught 
by  us  is  true.  This  means  that  the  rejecter  of  this  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  common  with  the  rejecter  of  any  other 
article  of  faith  is  disapproved  of  and  excluded  from  the  Com- 
munion. Thus,  again,  is  overthrown  the  false  assumption  that 
the  ancient  Church  allowed  of  known  conflicting  views  in 
regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Seventh.  These  words  of  Justin 
show  that  the  supernatural  character  of  the  elements  in  the 
Supper  is  dependent  upon  consecration.  He  distinctly  afiirms 
that  only  after  the  word  of  God  upon  them  do  they  possess 
their  character  as  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ.  This  alone 
overthrows  the  Zwinglian  doctrine,  for  if  the  bread  be  the  body 
of  Christ  symbolically,  it  is  such,  as  bread,  quite  independently 
of  any  consecration.  Eighth.  Justin  expresses  the  true  doctrine 
of  what  it  is  that  does  consecrate  in  the  Supper;  gives  the 
true  answer  to  the  question:  What  is  it,  by  which  that 
which  was  before  mere  bread,  now  becomes,  in  virtue  of  a 
supernatural  relation,  the  body  of  Christ?  He  says.  That  the 
consecration  takes  place  through  the  prayer  of  the  word,  which 


732  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

18  from  Him,  i.  e.,  Christ,  (di  euchees  logon  tou  par  autou).  This 
may  include  the  Lord's  Prayer,  but  by  preeminence  it  expresses 
the  words  of  the  institution,  which  w^e  know,  in  fact,  constituted 
an  essential  part  of  the  earliest  liturgies ;  and  St.  Justin  him- 
self expressly  mentions  Christ's  words  as  the  words  used  in  the 
consecration,  and  makes  them  parallel  with  the  consecrating 
words  used  in  the  mysteries  of  "  Mithra,"  which  were  a  dia- 
bolic copy  and  parody  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  doctrine  of  Justin  is  that  in 
the  Supper  a  new  incarnation  of  Christ  takes  place.  This  view 
has  been  maintained  by  Semler,  Ilahn,  Neander,  Baur,  Engel- 
hardt,  and  others.  It  has,  following  them,  been  most  fully 
presented  by  Semisch,  in  his  Justin  Martyr.*  "  Justin,"  says 
Semisch,  ''  regards  the  Supper  as  it  were  a  repeated  incarna- 
tion ;  as  the  incarnation  was  consummated  in  this,  that  the 
Divine  Los^os  assumed  flesh  and  blood,  so  he  supposes  that  the 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  mediates  itself  in  this,  that 
the  Divine  Logos  unites  Himself  with  bread  and  wine  as  His 
body  and  blood.  Bread  and  wine  do  not  change  physically  in 
the  Supper,  but  neither  do  they  remain  common  bread  and 
common  wine.  They  are,  after  the  Eucharistic  prayer  by 
which  they  are  consecrated,  as  it  were  the  vessel  in  which  the 
Divine  Logos  dwells,  and  are,  consequently,  really,  even  if  only 
figuratively,  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Logos."  This  means 
that  the  bread  is  not  the  medium  of  the  communication  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  but  is  in  some  sense  literally  the  new  body  of 
the  unincarnate  Logos.  That  is  to  say,  that  the  Divine  nature 
of  Christ,  separate  from  His  human  body^  puts  on  the  bread  of 
the  Eucharist  as  a  new  body  ;  hence  this  bread  is  a  body  to  the 
unincarnate  Logos.  That  this  is  not  Justin's  view  is  very  clear, 
firsts  because  he  connects  w^ith  his  own  representation  the 
words  of  the  institution ;  clearly  showing  that  he  had  in  his 
mind  the  words,  "  my  body,  my  blood,"  there  occurring  in  that 
sense  almost  undisputed,  in  which  they  are  accepted  by  univer- 
sal Christendom,  even  by  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the 
true  presence.     When  Justin  speaks  of  the  body  of  Christ  he 

*  Semisch,  C.  A.:   Justin  der  Miirtyicr,  1840-42,  (translated  by  J.  F.  Ryland, 
Edinb.,  1843,  2  vols.,  post  Svo). 


/  us  TIN  MA  R  T  YR.  733 

evidently  has  in  view  those  words  in  which  Christ  says:  "  My 
body  given  —  my  blood  shed  for  you."  Who  can  believe  that 
Justin  imagined  an  impanate  and  invinate  Jesus ;  and  that  he 
was  so  beclouded  as  to  imagine  that  this  bread-body  could  be 
the  body  which  was  given  for  men,  this  wine-blood,  the  blood 
v.'hich  was  shed  for  mankind  for  the  remission  of  sins.  The 
bread  and  the  cup  cannot  be  thought  of  as  that  body  of  Christ 
wliicli  was  given  and  that  blood  which  w^as  i^hed  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  Nothing,  but  the  impossibility  of  any  other  view, 
would  justify  us  in  fixing  so  monstrous  a,  theory  upon  the 
language  of  Justin.  Second.  Justin  is  very  careful  to  express 
how  far  the  parallel  between  the  personal  co-presence  of  the  two 
natures  of  Christ  and  the  sacramental  co-presence  of  the  two 
elements  of  the  Supper  goes  and  does  not  go.  The  "on  tropon," 
which  we  have  translated,  "  in  what  way,"  does  not  mean  to 
state  that  the  modes  of  the  two  things  are  identical,  but  simply 
to  show  that  the  first  is  a  voucher  for  the  second  ;  that  there 
is  such  a  parallel ;  that  the  first  authenticates  and,  to  a  certain 
degree,  explains  the  second  ;  but  not  at  all  that  there  is  an  iden- 
tity of  mode,  still  less  that  the  second  is  a  repetition  of  the  first. 
In  the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament,  "  on  tropon  "  has  the 
sense,  "As,  even  as,  what  manner,  corresponding  to,"  Ezek.  xlii. 
7  :  "  After  the  manner  of,"  Ezek.  xlv.  6.  "  Outoos  "  has  the 
sense,  "  So,  even  so,  likewise,  thus."  There  are  passages  in  the 
Biblical  Greek  in  which  the  two  expressions  are  related  pre- 
cisely as  in  Justin.  2  Maccab.  xv.  40,  "  As  (on  tropon) 
wine  mingled  with  water  is  pleasant,  even  so  (outoos)  speech 
finely  framed  delighteth."  Acts  i.  11,  "  In  like  manner  as  (on 
tropon)  ye  have  seen  Ilim  go  into  heaven,  this  same  Jesus  shall 
so  (outoos)  come."  2  Tim.  iii.  8,  "Now  as  (on  tropon)  Jannes 
and  Jambres  withstood  Moses,  so  (outoos)  these  also  resist  the 
truth."  Not  identity  but  simihirity  is  expressed  in  every  case. 
Justin  clearly  says,  that  the  "  word,"  in  virtue  of  which  the 
Eucharist  becomes  Christ's  flesh  i^nd  blood,  is  the  word  of  the 
prayer,  or  prayer  of  the  word,  "  euchees  logon."  It  is  not  the 
Logos  which  effects  the  change  of  which  he  speaks,  but  the 
prayer  of  the  Avord  which  is  from  Him,  to  wit,  from  Jesus 
Christ,    whom    he    has  just   styled   the   "  incarnate   Logos." 


734  COXSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Finally,  he  says,  in  downright  terms,  that  it  (the  bread  and 
wine)  are  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  incaryiateJesns^  exactly  the 
opposite  of  the  position  of  Semisch,  and  of  those  who  agree 
with  him,  which  is,  tliat  the  bread  and  wine  are  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  unincarnate  Logos.  Now,  could  Justin  call  the  nn- 
incarnatc  Logos  Jesus?     The  Logos  separated  from  the  human 
nature    is    not    Jesus.     This    manufactured  theory  represents 
Josus  as  both  incarnate  and  unincarnate,  as  having  one  abiding 
body  of  flesh,  and  innumerable  ever-renewed  bodies  of  bread, 
as  approaching  unincarnate  the  elements  and  taking  them  to 
Him,  the  bread  as  another  body  than  His  true  body,  the  wine 
as  another  blood  than  His  true   blood.     That  great  scholars 
should  have  acquiesced  in  a  theory  of  such  intrinsic  absurdity 
—  a  theory  which  has  nothing,  in  the  language  of  Justin,  to 
necessitate  or  even  excuse  it  —  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the 
endemic  disease  of  thought  and  feeling  which  in  German  the- 
olo2:y  so  largely  infects  even  those  who  most  wish  to  escape  it. 
The  ambitious  ardor  of  scholarship,  the  desire  after  originality, 
the  love  of  novelty,  the  chaotic  subjectivism  which  Rationalism, 
though  baffled  and  defeated,  leaves  behind  it,  impair  the  solid 
judgment,  and   diminish    the   value   of  the   labors  of  many 
of  the  greatest  recent  theologians.*     Thiersch  f  says  of  this 
theory,   "I  declare    that    this  whole   statement   is   through- 
out fabulous.     It  has  arisen  from  pure  misunderstanding,  and 
is  undeserving  of  further  notice.     It  would  destroy  the  entire 
connection  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  annihilate  the  most  hal- 
lowed doctrine  of  the  ancient  Church  —the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation."     The  Roman  Catholic  theology  long  endeavored 
to  find  in  the  words  "  kata  metaboleen,"  that  is,"  by  transmu- 
tation," a  warrant  for  Transubstantiation  ;  but  these  words  so 
evidently  refer  to  the  transmutation  of  the  bread  and  wine,  as 

*'*E9  will  jcdermann  im  Laden  fell  stehcn,  nicht  duss  ev  Christum  order  sein 
Gcheimniss  wolle  otft-nbiren,  sonderrf  sein  eigen  Geheimniss  und  schone  Ge- 
danken,  die  Er  iiber  Cbristi  Geheimniss  hiilt,  nicht  umsonst  gehabt  haben."  — 
Luther.  ("Everybody  has  his  wares  to  offer  — not  that,  he  wishes  to  reveal 
Christ  and  His  secret,  but  that  he  is  anxious  that  his  secret  and  the  beautiful 
idea  he  has  about  Christ's  Secret  shall  not  be  lost.") 

fin  his  able   "Prelections  on  Catholicisu)  and  Protestantism,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  247. 


/  r/,S  TJN    MA  R  T  Y R.  735 

the  sustenance  of  man,  tliat  J )(i3l linger,  the  ablest  defender  of 
the  Romish  views  in  our  day,  abandons  the  position.  It  is 
decisive  against  Romanism  and  Calvinism.  "  The  Lutheran 
theologians,"  says  Kahnis,  "are  justified  in  finding  in  this 
pjissage  a  testimony  to  the  doctrine  of  the  sacramental  union 
of  the  body  and  ])lood  of  Christ  with  the  elements;  and  in 
regarding  this,  not  as  the  testimony  of  one  ChurcVi  teacher,  but 
of  the  Church,  as  Justin  represents  it."  "  The  least  justifica- 
tion of  all,"  says  Semisch,  "lias  the  Reformed  Church,  in  ap- 
pealing to  these  words  of  Justin  in  defence  of  its  views  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  for  not  only  is  there  throughout  not  a  word  in 
regard  to  a  merely  symbolical  relation  of  the  elements  of  the 
Supper  to  the  Ijody  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  the  very  opposite 
is  clearly  expressed  in  the  declaration  that  the  bread  and  wine 
of  the  Supper  are  not  common  bread,  but  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ.  The  parallel  which  Justin  draws  between  the  incar- 
nation of  Jesus  and  the  act  of  the  Suj^per  make  it  absolutely 
necessary  to  suppose  that  as  the  corporeal  nature  of  the  incar- 
nate Redeemer  was  a  real  one,  so  also  the  bread  and  wine  of 
the  Supper  are  to  be  taken  in  a  real  sense  for  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ."  Even  Dorner  *  says:  "  Although  it  is  not 
strictly  correct  to  identify  his  doctrine  completely  with  the 
Lutheran,  yet,  from  what  has  been  said,  it  is  evident  that  it 
stands  most  near  to  the  Lutheran."  Ebrard  f  puts  the  con- 
struction on  the  words:  "As  Jesus,  supernaturally  begotten, 
had  His  creaturely  flesh  in  order  to  secure  our  redemption,  so 
this  Eucharistic  food,  w4iich  has  been  consecrated  by  prayer, — 
this  food  wherein  we  are  nourished  conformably  to  the  trans- 
mutation of  the  creation,  —  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (a 
supercreaturely  food  having  respect  to  the  Redeemer).  Under 
metabolee,  I  believe,  we  are  neither  to  understand  the  trans- 
mutation of  bread  and  wine  into  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ 
nor  into  our  flesh  and  blood,  but  the  world-historical  fact  of 
the  transformation  of  the  creaturely  into  the  sanctified  —  the 
redeemed."  On  this,  Kahnis  :[:  adds  :  "  This  exposition,  and  the 
argument  for  it,  is  to  such  a  degree  arbitrary  and  unhistorical, 
that  we  regard  a  refutation  of  it  as  unnecessary." 

*rerson  Christi,  II.  401.  f  AbeuJu..  I.  2G0.  +  Abenlm.  186. 


736  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

THE    TESTIMONY    OF    IREN^US. 

Oar  next  great  primary  witness  is  St.  Iren^us,  martj^r.  He 
lived  near  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  He  was  most  intimate  with 
Poly  carp,  who  was  one  of  the  Apostle  John's  best  beloved 
friends,  and  from  Polycarp's  own  lips  he  heard  what  John  told 
in  regard  to  Christ :  "  Koting  these  things,"  he  says,  "  in  my 
heart."  Tertullian  styles  Irenoeus,  "  the  most  exact  investigator 
of  all  doctrines."  Erasmus  says:  "His  writings  breathe  that 
ancient  vigor  of  the  Gospel,  and  his  style  argues  a  spirit  ready 
for  martyrdom."  The  school  of  Asia  Minor,  alike  in  the  range 
of  its  science  and  the  purity  of  its  faith,  was  the  great 
school  of  this  era ;  and  its  most  faithful  and  profound  repre- 
sentative in  its  best  tendencies  is  Iren?eus.  He  has  expressed 
III.  irenseus,  himsclf  in  several  passages  with  great  clearness  in 
Fi.,  176-202.  regard  to  the  Eucharist.  The  most  important 
passage  in  regard  to  the  essence  and  effects  of  the  Eucharist 
is  found  in  his  "Book  against  Heresies,"  b.  4,  ch.  18,  §  45. 
He  holds  up  against  the  Gnostics  the  confession  of  the  Church 
as  embodied  in  fact  in  the  Supper.  First  of  all,  the  offering 
of  the  products  of  nature  —  the  bread  and  wine,  which  are  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  —  is  in  conflict  with  the  dualism  of  the 
Gnostics,  according  to  which  the  world  is  not  regarded  as 
created  by  the  Supreme  God.  Second.  He  urges  against  it  the 
Church  faith  that  our  bodies,  through  the  Supper,  receive  the 
potencies  of  the  resurrection.  This  is  opposed  to  the  Gnostic 
dualism  between  matter  and  spirit.  He  speaks  thus  :  "How 
shall  they  know  certainly  that  that  bread,  over  which  thanks 
are  given,  is  the  body  of  their  Lord,  and  that  the  cup  is  the 
cup  of  His  blood,  if  they  do  not  acknowledge  Him  as  the  Son 
of  the  Creator  of  the  world,  that  is,  His  Word,  through  which 
Word  wood  yields  fruit,  and  fountains  flow,  and  the  earth 
yieldeth  blade,  ear,  and  full  corn.  If  the  Lord  belong  to  an- 
other Father,  how  was  it  just,  that,  taking  bread  of  this  our  crea- 
tion, He  confessed  that  it  was  His  own  body,  and  He  afiirmed 
that  the  mingled  drink  of  the  cup  was  His  own  blood." 

"Altogether  vain  are  they  who  deny  the  salvation  of  the 
flesh  and  despise  its  regeneration,  saying  that  it  is  not  capable 
of  iiicorruption.      Lut  if  it  will  not  be  saved,  in  truth,  the  Lord 


IREN^US.  737 

has  not  redeemed  us  by  His  blood,  nor  is  the  cup  of  the  Eu- 
charist the  communication  of  His  blood,  nor  the  bread  which 
we  break  the  communication  of  llis  body ;  for  blood  is  not 
save  of  veins  and  flesh,  and  of  the  rest  of  human  substance,  in 
which  the  AVord  of  God  was  truly  made." 

"How  say  they  that  the  flesh  passeth  to  corruption,  and 
partaketh  not  of  life,  the  flesh  which  is  nourished  from  the 
body  of  the  Lord  and  His  blood.  Either  let  them  {i.e.  heretics) 
change  their  mind  or  abstain  from  offering  the  things  above 
spoken  of  (that  is,  the  Eucharist).  Our  doctrine  harmonizes 
with  the  Eucharist,  and  the  Eucharist  confirms  our  doctrine, 
and  we  offer  to  God  His  own,  carefully  teaching  the  communi- 
cation and  union  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  and  confessing  the 
resurrection.  For  as  the  earthly  bread  (literally,  the  bread  from 
the  earth,)  (apo  gees  artos),  receiving  the  invocation  of  God,  is  no 
longer  common  bread,  but  Eucharist,  consisting  of  two  things, 
an  earthly  and  a  heavenly,  so  also  our  bodies,  receiving  the 
Eucharist,  are  no  longer  corruptible,  having  the  hope  of  the 
resurrection  to  eternal  life." 

Here  we  see  distinctly.  Firsts  the  doctrine  of  the  copresence, 
really  and  truly,  of  the  two  elements,  —  the  earthly  one,  true 
bread ;  the  heavenly  one,  true  body ;  the  earthly  one,  the  true 
cup ;  the  heavenly  one,  the  true  blood.  Second.  AVe  see  that 
the  earthly  is  regarded  as  the  communicating  medium  of  the 
heavenly,  and  a  supernatural  efficacy,  reaching  both  body  and 
soul,  is  connected  with  them.  We  see,  moreover,  that  the 
consecration  (the  ekkleesis  or  epikleesis)  of  God  produces  the 
union  of  the  earthly  and  heavenly.  The  doctrine  of  Irenseus 
alike  is  opposed  to  the  Romish  denial  of  the  bread  and  the 
Reformed  denial  of  the  body. 

Very  violent  is  the  pretext  of  Doellinger  and  Mohler,  who 
make  the  earthly  part  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  the 
heavenly  part,  the  Logos ;  but  the  passage  says  nothing  about 
the  Logos,  nor  would  the  Fathers  call  the  Logos  a  pragma,  a 
thing  or  part  of  the  Eucharist.  The  "  epigeion "  (earthly) 
manifestly  refers  to  the  "apo  gees,"  (just  before,)  the  earthy 
from  which  the  bread  is  said  to  come,  and  with  reference  to 
which  it  is  called  "  earthly." 
47 


738  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Some  of  the  Reformed  say  that  Irenseus  means  by  the  heav- 
enly element  the  significance  of  the  elements :  others  maintain 
that  he  means  a  certain  virtue  or  operation  supposed  to  be  in- 
fused into  the  elements.  But  these  evasions  of  the  meaning  of 
Irenseus  are,  First,  opposed  to  the  direct  letter  oi  his  statement : 
the  significance^  or  virtue,  would  not  justify  the  word  "  consist." 
Bread  does  not  consist  of  wheat  and  symbolic  meaning,  nor  of 
wheat  and  spiritual  power.  Second.  To  the  argument  of  Ire- 
nseus :  "  Our  bodies,  receiving  the  Eucharist,  are  no  longer  cor- 
ruptible, but  have  hope  of  the  resurrection."  Does  he  attribute 
so  great  a  thing  to  a  virtue  (not  to  speak  of  a  signifi.cance)  in 
the  bread  and  wine?  Possibly  the  ardor  of  partizanship  might 
lead  some  to  reply,  He  does  ;  but  such  a  reply  is  precluded  by 
his  words  in  immediate  connection:  "How  say  they  (the  her- 
etics) that  our  flesh  comes  to  corruption,  and  does  not  receive 
life,  that  flesh  which  is  nurtured  bg  the  hoclg  and  blood  of  the 
Lord.^^  Third.  To  the  direct  assertion  of  Irenseus,  in  a  parallel 
place  :  *  "Where  the  mingled  cup  and  bread  receives  the  word 
of  God,  it  becomes  the  Eucharist  of  the  bodg  and  blood  of  Christ." 

Dorner,t  after  showing  the  untenableness  of  Semisch's  theo- 
ry, adds :  "As  Semisch  concedes,  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation  is  excluded  by  the  words  of  Irenseus,  and  no 
less  is  the  Reformed  conception.  This  does  not  indeed  de- 
monstrate that  the  Lutheran  view  is  that  of  Irenteus,  yet  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  Iren?eus  stands  more  closely  to  it." 
Thiersch  says :  "  So  much  stands  indisputably  fl.rm  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  as  certainly  the  '  ouranion  '  (the 
heavenly  thing)  of  the  Eucharist,  as  the  bread  derived  from 
the  earth,  and  the  wine  derived  from  the  earth,  is  the  '  epi- 
geion '  (the  earthly  thing)  of  the  Eucharist."  "But,"  adds 
Kahnis,  "  this  relation  one  to  the  other,  of  the  heavenly  and' 
earthly  matter,  is  the  characteristic  feature  of  the  Lutheran 
doctrine." 

On  the  meaning  of  the  testimony  of  these  earliest  Fathers,  a 

Marhoin.'kc'a    most  important  concession  is  made  by  Marheineke. J 

Concession.         rpj.^.g  cQj-jc^gg^Q^  \q  i\^q  niore  Striking  because  it  is 

connected  with  his   effort   to   establish  the  theory  that   the 

*Adv.  Hieres,  V.  296.  fin  bis  Per.  Ch  ,  vol.  ii.,  p.  496. 

J  Sanctor.  Patrum  de  Praesent.  22-31. 


MARHEINEKE'S  CONCESSIOK  739 

Reformed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  predominant  in 
the  first  four  centuries.  Marheineke,  after  presenting  the  evi- 
dence on  which  he  rests  his  theory,  goes  on  to  say  :  "  There  are 
other  sayings  of  other  Fathers  (of  this  era),  which,  in  whatso- 
ever way  they  may  be  tortured^  seem  to  admit  of  no  other 
meaning  than  that  of  the  real  presence  of  our  Lord."  Such  is 
that  of  Justin  Martyr.  "  By  no /o?r-^,  and  by  no  artifice  (nulla 
vi  nulloque  artificio),  can  his  words  be  harmonized  with  the 
symbolic  interpretation.  The  presence  of  Christ  is  true  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  the  bread  and  wine  are  in  themselves  true, 
and  there  is  a  conjunction  of  Christ  with  them."  "  Irenjeus 
does  not  say  that  the  earthly  is  but  the  figure  of  the  heavenly, 
but  teaches  that  there  is  a  conjunction  of  the  heavenly,  to  wit, 
the  Son  of  God,  with  that  earthly  nature,  bread  and  wine. 
'  Christ  declared  that  the  bread  is  His  oivn  proper  (idion)  body, 
and  the  cup  His  own  proper  (idion)  blood ; '  from  which  words 
ought  to  be  gathered  what  he  means  by  the  '  earthly '  and 
'  heavenly '  things.  The  typical  sense,  therefore,"  (the  Re- 
formed) "  and  the  hyperbolic  "  (the  Romish)  "  Irenseus  clearly 
excludes.  Weighing  with  a  just  balance,  we  shall  see  that 
Irenseus  held  the  middle  view  "  (the  Lutheran)  "  in  regard  to 
the  real  presence." 

From  the  simple  sense,  then,  of  their  own  language,  and  from 
the  concessions  of  men  of  eminence,  who  had  reason  to  grant 
as  little  force  as  the  testimony  could  possibly  bear  to  our  doc- 
trine, it  is  fixed  that  the  earliest  witnesses  of  the  faith  of 
Christendom  accord  with  the  confession  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  regard  to  the  objective  sacramental  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Supper.  They  stand  as  a 
bulwark  alike  against  the  false  spiritualism  which  reduces  the 
Divine  mystery  to  the  level  of  nature,  and  that  carnalism  which 
makes  it  a  prodigy  arrayed  against  nature.  They  maintain,  as 
our  Church  does,  that  the  sacramental  presence  is  neither  na- 
tural nor  unnatural,  but  supernatural,  that  is,  is  neither  con- 
ditioned by  the  laws  of  the  lower  natures,  nor  contrary  to  them, 
but  is  conformed  to  the  laws  of  the  Supreme  ligature. 

The  ancient  Church  Catholic  professed  to  have  one  concord- 
ant faith.     That  interpretation,  therefore,  of  the  utterances  of 


740  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

individual  witnesses  is  most  probable,  all  other  things  being 
equal,  which  best  accords  with  the  claim.  The  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints  has  abode  through  all  time.  By  separat- 
ing the  testimony,  and  by  assuming  that  the  Christian  Church 
for  centuries  had  no  fixed  doctrine,  no  faith  in  regard  to  the 
Eucharist,  but  that  there  was  a  mere  chaos  of  conflicting  pri- 
vate opinions,  the  Fathers  have  been  forced  into  contradiction 
of  each  other  and  of  themselves.  But  if  it  first  be  allowed  that 
the  ichole  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  as  adduced  by  Romanists, 
Lutherans,  and  Reformed,  jnaij  be  internally  harmonious,  and 
if  that  possible  harmony  be  tested  by  the  efi:brt  to  arrange  the 
whole  in  a  self-consistent  system,  the  Romish  and  Reformed 
views  alike  fail  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  case  ;  and  the  whole 
testimony',  as  a  whole,  corresponds  from  beginning  to  end  with 
the  Lutheran  faith.  We  claim  that  the  Latin  and  Greek 
Fathers  had  the  same  faith  touching  the  Eucharist,  and  that 
the  faith  they  held  is  identical  with  that  confessed  in  the  Tenth 
Article  of  the  Auo-sburg-  Confession.  This  we  shall  endeavor 
to  establish  by  a  Systematic  Statement  of  their  views  in  their 
own  words. 

1.  The  Fathers  clearly  assert  the  substantial  reality  of  the  bread 
Systematic  and  winc   before,  during,  and   after   the   Supper. 
vlewsTAVJ  Fa-  Their  utterances,  decisive  against  Transiibsfantiation, 
thers.  have  been  perverted  to  a  denial  of  the  objective  true 

presence,  which  they  firmly  held.  They  call  these  visible  ele- 
ments "  bread  and  wine  "  throughout ;  they  speak  of  them  as 
"  of  the  creature,"  "  made  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,"  as  ''  the 
food  of  life,"  "  the  substance  of  bread  and  w^ine,"  (Theophylact 
in  Marc.  14,)  the  bread  is  *'  made  up  of  many  united  grains,"  is 
"  wheat,"  "  the  nature  of  bread  remains  in  it,"  (Chrysostom,) 
"  not  altering  nature,"  (Tiieodoret).*  The  wine  is  "the  blood 
of  the  vine,"  "fruit  of  the  vine,"  "wine  pressed  out  of  many 
grapes,"  as  conjoined  with  water  it  is  "  mixed,"  "  the  mystical 
Bymbols  depart  not  from  their  own  nature,  for  they  remain  still 
in  their  former  substance,"  (ousia)  (THEODORET).t  So  express 
is  the  language  of  Theodoret  against  Transubstantiation,  that 
in  the  edition  of  his  Dialogues,  published  in  Rome,  1547,  by 

*  Dialog.  I.,  IV.  t  Dialog.  11. 


THE  VIEWS   OF  THE  FATHERS.  741 

!N'icolirju8,  printer  to  the  Pope,  it  is  admitted  that  his  view  is 
unsound  (from  the  Romish  point  of  view),  and  the  apology  is 
made  for  him  that  the  Church  had  not  yet  fixed  the  doctrine 
by  her  decree.  No  less  express  is  the  language  of  Pope  Gela- 
sius  (a.  d.  492) :  *^  "  Certainly  the  Sacraments  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  a  divine  thing,  through  which  we  are  made 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature;  and  yet  the  substance  or  nature 
of  bread  and  wine  does  not  cease  to  be  (tamen  esse  non  desinit 
substantia,  vel  natura  panis  et  viui)."  So  helpless  are  the  acut- 
est  Romish  controversialists,  Baronius,  Bellarmin,  Suarez,  and 
others,  before  this  passage,  that  they  try  to  prove  that  another 
Gelasius  wrote  the  book.  But  not  only  have  these  arguments 
been  overthrown  by  Protestant  writers,  but  the  Jesuit  Labbe, 
renowned  for  his  learnins;  and  his  bitter  antao:onism  to  Protes- 
tantism,  has  completely  vindicated  the  claim  of  Pope  Gelasius 
to  the  authorship  of  the  book.f 

2.  They  sometimes  speak  of  the  elements,  simply  considered 
as  bread  and  wine,  in  their  natural  relations  and  characteristics 
— as  taken  from  the  earth,  nourishing  the  body,  passing  into 
the  circulation  of  the  blood.  "  Food  by  which  our  blood  and 
flesh  are  nourished  by  transmutation,"  (Justin  ;)  "  by  which  the 
substance  of  our  flesh  is  nourished  and  consists,"  (Irenseus), 

3.  They  sometimes  speak  of  the  elements,  considered  in  them- 
selves, as  natural  symbols ;  bread  and  wine  as  the  most  obvious 
symbols  of  spiritual  nutrition  and  reviving,  and  this  natural  sym- 
bolism remains  through  the  Supper.  Cyprian:  "As  common 
bread,  which  we  eat  daily,  is  the  food  of  the  body,  so  that  super- 
substantial  bread  is  the  life  of  the  soul,  the  healing  of  the  mind." 
"  Because,  among  all  things  that  are  the  food  of  life,  bread  and 
wine  seem  most  to  strengthen  and  refresh  our  infirmity, it  is  with 
great  reason  that  lie  was  pleased  through  these  two  things  to 
confirm  the  mystery  of  His  Sacrament.  For  wine  both  gladdens 
us  and  increases  our  blood  ;  and,  therefore,  not  unfitly  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  figured  by  it."  j:  In  this  aspect  the  elements  are  some- 
times styled  symbols,  signs,  figures,  types  of  the  body  and  blood. 

*De  duabus  natur.  in  Chr.  adv.  Eutych,  et  Nestor,  in  Bibl.  Patr.  Mag.  IV.,  I 
422. 

fCave:   Hist.  Lit.  Ann.  492,  p.  298.     Deyling:   Obs.  Misc.  361. 
X  Dru^hmar  (Christiauus)  on  Matt.  26. 


742  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

ITo  passage  in  any  of  the  Fathers  asserts  that  the  elements  in 
the  Supper  are  merely  signs  or  s^-mbols.  The  passages  of  Ter- 
Tertniiiai.'s ap-  TULLiAN,  in  which  the  word  "figure"  is  applied  to 
plication  of  the  the  Lord's  Supper,  have  been  the  subject  of  much 
to^  the  Lord's  coutroversj.  In  the  first  of  these  passages,*  he 
Supper.  jg  speaking  of  the  prophecies  concerning  Christ.  He 

first  urges  Psalm  xcvi.  10,  according  to  a  reading  peculiar  to 
some  of  the  Greek  writers,  of  which  Justin  also  makes  men- 
tion :  ''  The  Lord  hath  reigned /ro?7i  the  loood.''  This  "  wood," 
says  Tertullian,  is  "  the  wood  of  the  cross."  "  This  wood,"  he 
continues,  ''  Jeremiah  prophesies  of  (xi.  9)  —  that  the  Jews 
should  say, '  Come,  let  us  put  wood  uj)on  His  bread  ;'  undoubtedly 
meaning  irpon  His  body.  For  so  did  God  reveal  even  in  the 
Gospel,  which  you  receive  as  genuine,  calling  bread  Ilis  body  ; 
so  that,  hence,  already  you  may  understand  that  He  assigned  to 
bread  the  fgura  of  His  body,  whose  body  the  prophet  had  figii- 
rated  upon  bread,  of  old,  the  Lord  himself  meaning  in  after 
time  to  explain  the  mystery."  In  this  passage  nothing  seems 
to  us  more  clearly  Tertullian 's  train  of  reasoning  than  this : 
Jeremiah  meant  by  "  wood  "  the  cross,  by  "  bread  "  Christ's 
body.  Christ,  by  calling  "  bread  "  His  body,  gave  the  key  to 
Jeremiah's  meaning,  lyds  bread  is  the  Jigura,  the  real  thing 
which  Jeremiahjigurated,  or  couched  under  ajigura  ;  and  this 
bread  is  that  figure  (now  opened),  because  this  bread  is  my 
body.  Jeremiah  calls  Christ's  true  body,  which  was  to  have 
the  cross  laid  upon  it,  bi^ead.  Why  ?  Because,  replies  Ter- 
tullian, there  was  to  be  a  bread  which  should  be  Christ's  true 
body.  Jeremiah  calls  that  bread  which  was  true  body  —  and 
Christ  opens  the  mystery  by  declaring  that  there  is  a  bread, 
to  wit,  the  Eucharistic  bread  —  which  is  His  true  body,  "  assign- 
ing to  bread  the  figura  of  His  body,"  as  the  propljet  before  had 
assigned  to  His  body  the  figura  of  bread.  He  identifies  the  panis 
of  the  prophet  with  the  panis  of  the  Communion  ;  and,  by  con- 
sequence, as  the  panis  of  the  prophet  is  really  the  body  which 
was  crucified,  so  is  the  panis  of  the  Communion  really  the  body 
which  was  crucified.  That  the  Calvinistic  interpretation  is 
impossible,  is  very  clear.    As  Tertullian  reasons,  if  the  panis  in 

*Adv.  Marcion,  III  ,  XIX. 


TERTULLIAK.  743 

the  Supper  is  not  Christ's  body,  hut  the  sign  of  it,  then  the 
panis  in  the  prophet  would  not  mean  Christ's  body,  but  would 
mean  the  sign  of  it ;  and  the  inference  would  be  that  he  means, 
let  us  put  the  wood  upon  the  sign  of  His  body,  that  is,  on  the 
bread  —  which  would  make  the  inference  exactly  the  opposite 
of  that  which  Tertullian  does  make,  would  cause  him  to  stul- 
tify himself  and  the  prophet,  and  instead  of  confuting  Marcion, 
he  would  play  into  his  hands.  Tertullian 's  whole  point  is  this, 
what  ''  bread  "  means  in  Jeremiah,  it  is  in  the  Supper.  It 
means  Christ's  body  in  Jeremiah,  because  it  is  Christ's  body  in 
the  Supper.  "  To  assign  the  (prophet's)  figura  of  His  body  to 
the  (sacramental)  bread,"  means  that  what  the  prophet  figured, 
that  is  meant  by  bread  as  a  figura,  to  wit,  Christ's  body,  is  by 
Christ  assigned  to  the  sacramental  bread  —  what  the  first 
means,  the  second  is,  to  wit,  Christ's  body. 

In  another  passage  the  same  thought  is  repeated.  lie  is 
showing  that  the  "  wood  "  of  the  cross  is  prophesied  Advert,  juda^os. 
of.  He  again  quotes  Jeremiah  :  "  '  Let  us  put  wood  ^'"'p-  ^'^'• 
upon  1Y\^  bread.'  Assuredly  wood  was  put  upon  His  body.  For 
so  Christ  hath  revealed,  calling  bread  His  body,  whose  body 
aforetime  the  prophet  figurated  upon  bread."  The  point  again 
is,  Why  does  the  prophet  give  the  name  of  bread  to  Christ's 
crucified  body  ?  The  answer  is,  Christ  gives  the  name  of  His 
crucified  body  to  bread.  But  how  does  this  answer  meet  the 
case?  for  the  prophet,  as  Tertullian  marks  and  emphasizes,  has 
done  exactly  the  opposite.  The  prophet  calls  Christ's  body 
bread.  Christ  calls  the  bread  His  body.  If  Christ  by  this  one 
phrase  means  that  the  bread  is  the  sign  of  His  body,  the  pro- 
phet by  the  other  would  of  necessity  mean  that  the  body  is 
the  sign  of  the  bread,  which  is  absurd.  The  whole  point  of 
Tertullian  rests  again  upon  the  supposition  that  it  is  one  and 
the  same  thing  which  is  called  "  bread  "  by  the  prophet  and  by 
Christ ;  and  that  because  Christ  calls  bread  His  body,  bread  in 
the  prophet  means  His  body.  On  the  contrary,  if  by  "  bread  " 
Christ  means  not  his  body,  but  the  symbolic  signs  of  his  body, 
then  the  prophet  does  not  mean  His  body  by  bread,  but  the 
symbolic  sign  of  His  body  ;  and  Jeremiah's  bread  is  bread. 
These  facts  prepare  us  for  a  clearer  view  of  the  passage  in 


744  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

which  this  same  argument  is  opened  in  its  greatest  fulness  by 
Tertullian  :  "  The  law  figurated  Christ's  passion.    The  bread  re- 
Adv  Marcion,  ^*eived  aud  distributed  to  His  disciples, He  made  that 
IV. 40.  body  of  His  own  (ilium  suum),  by  saying,  ^This  is 

my  hody^'  that  is,  figura  of  my  body.     But  there  would  not  have 
been  a  figura  unless  there  would  be  a  body  of  verity.     But  an 
empty  thing,  which  is  phantasm,  cannot  receive  a  figura.     Or 
if  He  feigned  that  bread  Avas  His  body,  because  He  lacked  verity 
of  body,  it  would  follow  that  He  delivered  up  bread  for  us. 
But  why  does  He  call  bread  His  body?     Marcion  understands 
this  to  have  been  the  ancient  figura  of  the  body  of  Christ,  who 
said,  through  Jeremiah :  '  They  have  thought  a  thought  against 
me,  saying.  Come,  let  us  cast  wood  upon  His  bread,'  to  wit, 
the  cross  upon  His  body.     Wherefore,  He  who  sheddeth  light 
on  the  things  of  old,  hath,  by  calling  bread  His  own  body,  made 
sufficiently  clear  what  He  then  meant '  bread  '  to  signify.    That 
ye  may  also  recognize  the  ancient  figura  of  blood  in  the  wine, 
Isaiah   will   aid."     No  passage  in  the  most  ancient   Fathers 
has  been  so  triumphantly  appealed  to  by  the  rejecters  of  the 
objective  presence  as  this  ;  and  yet,  carefully  examined,  it  is 
not  for  them ;  it  is  not  neutral,  but  is  utterly  against  them. 
The  "  figura  "  here  is  not  a  symbolic  figure  in  the  Supper,  but 
is  the  "  figura  "  of  prophecy.     This  is  most  clear.  First.  From 
the  whole  drift  of  the  argument,  which  turns  upon  the  evidence 
that  the  Old  Testament  figurates,  presents  figures  of  the  things 
of  the  ISTew.    Second.  From  the  tenses  of  the  verb  which  follows 
"  figura  of  my  body."     ''  For  there  would  not  have  been  (non 
fuisset)  a  figure  unless  there  would  he  (esset)  a  body  of  truth." 
"  Fuisset  "  in  the  pluperfect,  contrasted  with  "  esset  "  in  the 
imperfect,  distinctly  marks  that  the  figura  pertains  to  the  past 
prophecy,  as  the  esset  does  to  the  later  Eucharist.    Third.  The 
figura  is  expressly  said  to  be  the  ancient  figura.   ''This  to  have 
been  (fuisse,  perfect)  ancient  figura  (veterem  figuram)  of  the 
body  of  Christ."     Fourth.  The  figura  of  the  blood  is  expressly 
called  the  "  ancient  figure."    Fifth.  The  same  argument  which 
was  used  in  connection  with  the  other  passages  applies  with 
equal  force  here.     The  thought  is,  Christ  made  the  bread  His 
body  by  the  consecrating  words;   and  thus    this  bread,  now 


TERTULLIAN.  745 

by  sacramental  conjunction  His  body,  is  identified  by  Ilini  with 
tlie  ancient  prophetic  figiira  of  His  body.  The  thing  which 
the  prophet  calls  bread  is  literally  Christ's  body ;  the  thing  which 
Christ  offers  in  the  Eucharist  is  literally  Christ's  body.  Hence, 
we  recognize  the  ancient  hgura  of  the  body  in  the  bread,  as  we 
"  recoo-nize  the  ancient  fio-ura  of  the  blood  in  the  wine."  "  As 
now  He  hath  consecrated  His  blood  in  wine,  who  under  the 
Old  Covenant  figurated  wine  in  blood,"  so  now  He  hath  conse- 
crated His  body  in  bread,  as  under  the  Old  Covenant  He  figu- 
rated bread  in  His  body.  AVhat  is  figure  there  is  reality  here 
—  the  figura  and  reality  are  thus  identified — the  bread  of 
Jeremiah  and  the  bread  in  the  Supper  are  one  and  the  same 
thing,  to  w^it,  the  body  of  Christ. 

4.  They  constantly  distinguish  between  the  elements  con- 
sidered as  before  the  consecration  and  after  it.  Iren^us  :  "  The 
bread  Avhich  i^eceives  the  vocation  of  God  in  the  administration 
of  the  Supper."  Isidore  :  "  That  which  being  made  of  the  fruits 
of  the  earth  is  sanctified  and  made  a  sacrament,  the  Spirit  of 
God  operating  invisibly."  Theodoret  :  ''After  consecration,  we 
call  the  fruit  of  the  vine  the  Lord's  blood."  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem: ^  ''  The  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist  before  the  invo- 
cation is  mere  bread  and  wine." 

5.  They  assert  that  the  bread  after  consecration  is  not  in  every 
respect  what  it  was  before.  Irenjsus  :  "It  is  not  common 
bread."  "  Thousfh  that  bread  be  bread  before  the  sacramental 
words,  yet,  when  the  consecration  is  added,  of  bread  it  becomes 
Christ's  body."t  ''  Our  bread  and  cup  is  not  mystical,  but  is 
made  mystical  to  us  by  a  certain  consecration." :[  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem:  ''After  invocation,  the  bread  becomes  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  the  wine  His  blood." 

6.  They  assert  the  presence  of  two  elements ;  the  first  of 
which  is  earthly,  the  second,  heavenly.  Iren^eus  :  §  "It  is  a 
Eucharist  consisting  of  two  things,  an  earthly  thing  and  hea- 

*  Cat.  Myst.  Prim. 

f  De  Sacraraentis,  Lib.  IV.,  imputed  to  Ambrose. 

J  Augustine,  Contr.  Faust.  L.  XX.  c.  13,  fit  non  nascitur. 

I  Adv.  Hser.  IV.  34. 


746  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

venlj  tiling."  Augustine:*  "It  consists  of  two  things,  the 
visible  species  of  the  elements,  and  the  invisible  flesh  and  blood 
of  our  Lord  Jesus,  the  Sacrament,  and  the  thing  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  IIesychius  :  "At  the 
same  time  bread  and  flesh."  Augustine:  "One  thing  is  the 
object  of  vision,  the  other  of  the  understanding." 

7.  They  assert  that  the  heavenly  is  received  in  the  earthly. 
Tertullian  :  f  "/?i  the  bread  is  accounted  the  body  of  Christ. 
His  blood  He  hath  consecrated  in  wine."  Cyril  :j:  of  Jerusa- 
lem :  "/?!  the  type  of  bread  His  body  is  given  thee,  and  in  the 
type  of  wine  His  blood,  that  thou  mayest  be  of  one  body  and 
of  one  blood  with  Him.  His  sacred  flesh  and  precious  blood 
we  receive  ui  the  bread  and  wine."  Augustine  :  §  "Receive 
in  the  bread  that  which  hung  upon  the  cross.  Receive  in  the 
cup  that  which  was  shed  from  Christ's  side."  He  severely 
reproves  Urbieus  1  for  "  reproachful  words  against  the  whole 
Church  of  Christ  from  the  risino;  of  the  sun  unto  the  o-oincr 
down  thereof;"  and  most  of  all  because  he  does  not  believe 
that  "  now  also  the  blood  is  received  in  the  cup."  Chrysos- 
TOM :  T[  "  That  which  is  in  the  cup  is  that  which  floAved  from 
His  side,  and  of  it  we  are  partakers."  Facundus  :  "  The  Sac- 
rament of  His  body  and  blood,  which  is  in  the  consecrated 
bread  and  cup.  They  contain  in  them  the  mystery  of  His  body 
and  blood." 

8.  They  assert  that  the  heavenly  is  received  icith  the  earthly. 
CuRYSOSTOM  :  **  "  With  those  things  which  are  seen,  we  believe, 
are  present  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 

9.  They  assert  that  the  heavenly  is  received  under  the 
earthly.  Hilary  :  ff  "  Under  the  Sacrament  of  the  flesh  to  be 
communicated  to  us.  He  hath  mingled  the  nature  of  His  own 
flesh.  .  .  We  truly  under  a  mystery  receive  the  flesh  of  His 
body."     Cyril  of  Jerusalem :  :j::j:  "C/?i^^r  the  species  of  bread 

*Apud.  Gratian.  XL  48.  fDe  Oratione,  IV.     Adv.  Marc.  IV.  40. 

JCateclies  IV.     Epist.  ad.  Coelosyr.  ?  Ad.  Neophytos,  I. 

II  Epist.  LXXXVI.  \  Horn.  XXIV.  in  I.  Con 

**  Horn.  XXIV.  in  I.  Cor.     De  Sacerdot.  IIL        ff  De  Trinitat.  VIII. 
XX  Catech.   Mystagog.  4. 


THE   FATHERS.  747 

the  body  is  given  there,  and  under  the  species  of  wine  the  blood 
is  given  there."  Bernhard:  "  What  we  see  is  the  species  of 
bread  and  wine :  what  we  believe  to  be  under  that  species  is 
the  true  body  and  true  blood  of  Christ,  which  hung  upon  the 
cross,  and  which  flowed  from  Ilis  side." 

10.  They  expressly  deny  that  the  elements,  considered  in  their 
distinctive  sacramental  character,  are  figures  of  the  body  and 
blood.  John  of  Damascus  :  *  "  The  bread  and  wine  are  not  the 
figure  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  but  the  very  body  of  our 
Lord  :  inasmuch  as  the  Lord  himself  has  said.  This  is  not  the 
figure  of  a  body,  but  my  body  ;  not  a  figure  of  blood ,  but  yny 
blood.  If  some,  as  for  example  St.  Basil,  have  called  the  bread 
and  wine  images  and  figures  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, 
they  have  said  it  not  after  the  consecration,  but  before  it." 
NiCEPHORUS :  t  "  We  do  not  call  these  things  image  or  figure, 
but  the  body  of  Christ  itself." 

11.  The  Fathers  considered  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  great  act 
in  which  believers  alone  could  lawfully  unite  —  those  who  re- 
ceived the  pure  faith,  and  who  were  regenerate  of  water  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  —  none  but  the  baptized,  who  were  living  as 
Christian  men,  w^ere  allowed  even  to  look  upon  it.  Justin 
Martyr:  "  Of  the  Eucharist,  no  one  may  partake  save  he  who 
believeth  that  what  is  taught  by  us  is  true,  and  hath  been  washed 
in  that  laver  which  is  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  to  regenera- 
tion, and  liveth  as  Christ  hath  delivered." 

12.  They  applied  to  it  names  and  epithets  which  imply  its 
supernatural  character.  They  call  it  "  a  mystery  "  in  the  latter 
sense,  as  a  thing  surpassing  all  grasp  of  reason  —  "  a  mystery 
before  which  we  should  tremble."  Ignatius  styles  it  "The 
medicine  of  immortality  ;  the  antidote  against  death,  which 
secures  life  in  God  through  Jesus  Christ ;  the  purifier ;  the 
arrester  of  evil ;  the  bread  of  God  ;  the  bread  of  heaven." 
Justin  calls  it,  "The  assumption  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
Son."  DiONYSius:  "The  initiation  into  the  mystery  of  mys- 
teries." The  JSTiCENE  Canon  :  "  The  viaticum  ;  the  supply  for 
the  journey  of  life."  Damascenus:  "  The  amulet  against  every 
evil ;  the  purifier  from  every  spot ;  the  earnest  of  the  life  and 

*  De  Fide  Orthodox,  IV.  13.  f  Allatius  de  perpet.  Cons.  III.  15. 


748  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  kingdom  yet  to  come."  Basil  prays  that  he  may  receive 
it  as  the  viaticum  of  life  everlasting  and  the  acceptable  defence 
before  the  awful  bar  of  God.  Ciirysostom  calls  it  "  The  table 
which  is  the  sinew  of  our  soul ;  the  bread  of  the  understanding  ; 
the  ground  of  confidence.  It  is  hope,  salvation,  light,  and  life." 
''  On  account  of  this  body,  I  am  no  longer  earth  and  ashes  —  am 
no  more  captive  bat  free ;  for  its  sake  I  hope  for  heaven,  the 
life  immortal,  the  state  of  angels,  the  near  converse  with 
Christ." 

13.  They  find  prophecies  and  ti/pes  of  it  ever3nvhere  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Ambrose  :  ''  Hear  holy  David  speaking  of  the 
table  in  (Ps.  xxiii.  5),  foreseeing  these  mysteries,  and  rejoicing  : 
lie  that  receiveth  the  body  of  Christ  shall  never  hunger."  The 
Fathers  find  types  of  the  Eucharist  in  the  Paschal  Lamb,  the 
manna,  the  blood  of  the  Old  Covenant,  the  shew-bread,  and  the 
flesh  of  the  sacrifices. 

14.  They  lay  great  stress  on  the  divinity  and  omnipotence  of 
Christ, as  essential  to  the  possibility  of  the  sacramental  presence 
and  to  the  comprehension  of  its  character.  Ciirysostom  :  "  It 
is  not  man  who  makes  the  bread  and  wine  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  but  Christ  himself,  who  was  crucified  for  us.  By  the 
power  of  God,  those  things  which  are  set  forth  are  consecrated 
through  the  medium  of  the  words.  This  is  my  body."  Iren.eus : 
"  How  shall  they  (the  heretics)  know  that  the  Eucharistic  bread 
is  the  body  of  their  Lord,  and  the  cup  the  cup  of  His  blood,  if 
they  do  not  acknowledge  Him  as  the  Son  of  the  Creator  of  the 
world.  His  Logos,  through  whom  the  tree  grows  fruitful,  the 
fountains  rise,  and  who  giveth  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear, 
then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear."  Ambrose:  "What  word  of 
Christ  bringeth  the  Sacrament  to  pass?  That  word  by  which 
all  things  were  made  —  the  heaven,  the  earth,  the  sea.  The 
power  of  the  benediction  is  greater  than  the  power  of  nature." 
Cypriax  :  "  That  bread  is  made  flesh  by  the  omnipotence  of  the 
AVord." 

15.  They  insist  upon  following  the  literal  force  of  the  words, 
accepting  them  by  faith,  howev^er  the  senses  and  natural  reason 
may  confiict  with  it;  and  declining  even  to  attempt  to  define 


THE  FATHERS. 


749 


the  rn^ode  of  the  presence.  Chryso3TOM:*  "We  believe  God 
everywhere,  though  to  our  senses  and  thought  that  which  He 
says  seems  absurd.  His  word  surpasses  our  sense  and  reason. 
In  all  things,  but  especially  in  mysteries,  we  regard  not  alone 
the  things  which  lie  before  us,  but  we  cling  also  to  His  words. 
Our  senses  are  easily  deceived  ;  His  words  cannot  mislead  us. 
A¥hen  therefore  lie  says:  This  is  my  body,  there  is  no  ambi- 
guity to  hold  us  ;  but  we  believe  and  perceive  clearly  with  the 
eyes  of  the  understanding."  Cyril  of  Alexandria:  "-How  He 
can  give  us  His  flesh,  it  is  impious  to  ask.  He  who  asks  it  has 
forgotten  that  nothing  is  impossible  with  God.  We,  bringing 
to  the  mysteries  a  firm  faith,  never  think  or  urge  in  such 
lofty  matters  that  question.  How  ?  It  is  a  Jewish  word.  When 
God  worketh,  we  do  not  ask  :  How  ?  but  commit  to  Plim  alone 
the  way  and  knowledge  of  His  OAvn  work."  DAMASCENUS:t 
"  Of  the  mystery,  we  know  only  that  the  word  of  Christ  is  true, 
and  efficacious,  and  omnipotent  —  the  mode  is  unsearchable." 
16.  They  represent  sacramental  communion  as  oral.,  corporeal. 
Iren^us  :  X  "  How  say  they  that  the  flesh  which  is  nourished 
by  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  falls  to  corruption  ?  How 
deny  they  that  the  flesh  which  is  nourished  by  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord,  is  capable  of  receiving  the  gift  of  God,  which 
is  life  eternal."  Tertullian:§  "The  flesh  is  washed  (in 
baptism),  that  the  soul  may  be  purified  ;  the  flesh  is  fed  with 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that  the  soul  may  be  nurtured 
of  God."  Cyprian:  ||  "  Those  mouths,  sanctified  by  heavenly 
food  — the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord."  Chrysostom  :  1 
'*  Purify  thy  tongue  and  lips,  which  are  the  portals  of  the  in- 
gress of  the  Christ.  Iso  common  honor  is  it  that  our  lips  re- 
ceive the  body  of  the  Lord."  Cyril  :  -^  "  Christ  dwelleth  in  us 
corporeally  by  the  communication  of  His  flesh."  Augustine  :  ft 
''  It  seemed  fit  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  in  honor  of  so  great  a 
Sacrament,  the  body  of  the  Lord  should  enter  the  mouth  of  the 

*Homil.  in  Matt.  83.  -  fOrth.  Fid.  IV.  14. 

X  Lib.  IV.  34;   V.  4.  §  De  Resurrect.  Cam.  8. 

II  De  Laps.  §  2.  H  !»  I-  ^o^-  ^^^^^' 

**ln  John  xiii.,  Lib,  X. 

tfEpist.  118,  Contr.  Adv.  leg.  et  proph.  IL  9. 


750  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Christian  before  any  other  food.  Christ  Jesus  giving  us  His  flesh 
to  eat  and  His  blood  to  drink,  we  receive  with  faithful  heart  and 
with  the  mouth  ;  although  it  seems  more  fearful  to  eat  human 
flesh  than  to  perish,  more  fearful  to  drink  human  blood  than  to 
shed  (our  own)."  Gregory: *  ''  The  blood  of  the  Lamb  is  now 
upon  the  side -posts,  when  it  is  drunken  not  only  with  the 
mouth  of  the  body,  but  also  with  the  mouth  of  the  heart." 
"His  blood  is  poured  into  the  mouths  of  believers."  Leo :  f 
"  Doubt  not  of  the  verity  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  for 
that  is  taken  by  the  mouth  which  is  believed  by  faith." 

17.  They  affirm  that  the  unworthy^  whether  administrators 
or  recipients,  impart  or  partake  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
Cypriax:  "  They  dare  to  profane  the  holy  body  of  the  Lord," 
(by  giving  it  to  the  impenitent).  "  With  polluted  mouth  he 
drinketh  the  blood  of  the  Lord.  AVith  deflled  hands  he  taketh 
the  body  of  the  Lord."  Chrysostom  :  if  "How  shall  he  dare 
to  approach  the  judgment-bar  of  Christ  who  has  dared  with 
impious  hands  and  lips  to  touch  His  body."  "  How  can  we 
receive  the  body  of  Christ  with  such  reproach  and  contumely." 
Ambrose  said  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius :  §  "  With  what 
rashness  dost  thou  take  with  thy  mouth  the  cup  of  precious 
blood,  when  by  the  fury  of  thy  words  innocent  blood  has  been 
spilt."  Augustine:!  "Is  it  right,  that  from  the  mouth  of 
Christians,  when  the  body  of  Christ  has  entered,  should  come 
forth  the  wanton  song,  as  it  were  the  poison  of  the  Devil  ? " 
Gecumenius  :  t  "  The  unworthy  with  their  impure  hands  re- 
ceive Christ's  most  sacred  body,  and  bring  it  to  their  execrable 
mouth."  Leo:  **  "  With  unworthy  mouth  they  receive  the 
body  of  Christ."  Theodoretus  :  ft  "  To  Judas  His  betrayer, 
also,  the  Lord  imparted  His  precious  body  and  blood." 

18.  They  institute  a  parallel,  in  certain  respects,  between  the 
incarnation  of  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  and  the  sacra- 
mental presence.  Justin  :  "  As  Jesus  Christ,  being  through  tho 
word  of  God  incarnate,  had  both  flesh  and  blood  for  our  salva- 

*  Horn.  XXII.,  Pasch.  Dialog.  IV.  fDe  jejun.  G. 

J  Eph.  Horn.  I.  ^Theodoret.  Hist.  Eccles.  V.  17. 

II  De  Tempor.  Serm.  215.  ![  I^^  I  Cor.  xi. 

♦*  De  Quadrag.  Serm.  iv.  ff  I  Cor.  xi. 


THE  FATHERS.  751 

tion,so  also,  as  we  have  been  tauj^lit,  the  food  ...  is  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  the  incarnate  Jesus."  Hilary:*  ^' The  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  we  through  the  food  of  the  Lord  truly  receive 
the  Word  made  flesh."  Augustine  :  f  "  The  Eucharist  consists 
of  two  things  —  the  visible  species,  and  the  invisil^le  flesh  and 
blood  of  our  Lord  —  the  Sacrament  and  the  thing  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, as  the  person  of  Christ  consists  and  is  constituted  of  God 
and  man  (sicut  Ohristi  persona  constat  et  conficitur  Deo  et 
homine)."  Cyprian::]:  "As  in  the  person  of  Christ  the  hu- 
manity w^as  seen  and  the  divinity  was  hidden,  so  the  divine 
essence  infuses  itself  ineffably  by  the  visible  Sacrament." 

19.  They  affirm  in  the  strongest  manner  the  identity  of  the 
true  body  and  blood  with  the  body  and  blood  which  are  given 
in  the  Supper.  Chrysostom  :  §  "  That  which  is  in  the  cup  is 
that  which  flowed  from  His  side ;  and  of  that  we  are  partak- 
ers." Ambrose:!  "There  is  that  blood  which  redeemed  His 
people.  ...  It  is  His  own  body  and  blood  we  receive."  "  The 
body  (in  the  Eucharist)  is  that  w^iich  is  of  the  Virgin." 

20.  They  compare  the  Eucharist  with  the  most  stupendous 
miracles  under  iDOth  dispensations,  appealing  to  the  miracles 
ao-ainst  the  deniers  or  perverters  of  the  sacramental  doctrine. 
Such  passages  are  so  numerous  and  familiar  as  to  require  no 
quotation. 

The  whole  testimony  of  the  Fathers  can  be  arranged  into  a 
self-harmonizing  system  accordant  with  the  Lutheran  doctrine. 
N'either  Romanism  nor  Calvinism  can  make  even  a  plausible 
arrangement  of  this  kind  on  their  theories.  The  Fathers  held, 
in  the  Supper,  to  the  true  presence  of  the  elements,  and  so  can- 
not be  harmonized  with  Romish  Transubstantiation :  they 
taught  a  true  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  so 
cannot  be  harmonized  with  the  Calvinistic  spiritualism.  Alike 
in  their  assertions  and  negations,  they  accord  with  the  positive 
doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  antithesis  of  that 
doctrine  to  error. 

So  steadfast  was  the  faith  of  the  Church  on  this  point  that 

*De  Trinit.  VIII.  13.  f  Apud  Gratian.  de  Consecr.  II   48. 

JSerm.  de  Sacra.  Coen.  §  In  I.  Cor.  Horn.  XXIV. 

U  De  Sacram.  VI.  6. 


752  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  very  heretics,  to  whose  theory  the  doctrine  of  the  true 
presence  was  most  fatal,  did  not  dare  to  deny  it. 

The  Pagan  revilers  and  persecutors  of  the  Church,  with  their 
clumsy  calumny,  that  the  Christians  in  their  assemhlies  ate 
human  flesh  covered  with  meal,  bear  witness  to  the  truth  they 
so  coarsely  misunderstood. 

The  profound  impression  made  by  the  Christian  faith  in  the 
Eucharistic  mystery  is  shown  in  the  attempts  of  idolaters  to 
imitate  and  counterfeit  it. 

The  superstitious  views  and  practices  which  grew  up  in  the 
Christian  Church  are  evidence  of  the  awful  reverence  with 
which  the  Eucharist  was  regarded.  Abuses  argue  uses,  super- 
stitions imply  truths,  by  which  their  characteristics  are  in  some 
measure  conditioned  ;  and  the  history  of  errors  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharist  strengthens  the  evidence,  already  so  strong, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  true  objective  presence  was  the  doctrine 
of  the  earliest  and  purest  Church. 

The  Liturgies  of  the  ancient  Church  testify  to  the  same 
great  fact ;  and  their  witness  is  the  more  important,  as  it  shows 
in  an    official    form    the  faith  of  the  Church.     In  the  most 
ancient  Liturgy  in  existence,  that  contained  in  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  and  which  is  the  general  model  of  all  the  others, 
the  bishop  of  the  congregation  is  directed,  on  delivering  the 
bread,  to  say  :  The  body  of  Christ.     The  deacon,  at  the  giving 
of  the  cup,  says :  The  blood  of  Christ—  the  Cup  of 
Liturgies,     -j^.^^^    Thc  commuuicaut  rcpHcd,  Amcu.    In  the  Lit- 
urgy of  St.  Mark,*  the  words  are:  "  The  holy  body,  the  precious 
blood  of  our  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour."    The  First  Council  of 
Tours,  A.  D.  460,  directed  these  words  to  be  used :  "  The  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  protit  thee  to  the  remission  of 
sins  and  everlasting  life."     In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  the 
bishop,  before  participating,  prays:  "  Make  me  worthy  by  Thy 
grace,  that  I,  without  condemnation,  may  be  partaker  of  the 
holy  body  and  the  precious  blood,  to  the  remission  of  sins  and 
life  eternal."     In  the  Ilorologion  of  the  Greek  Church  is  the 
prayer :  ''  Let  Thy  spotless  body  be  to  me  for  remission  of  sins, 
and  Thy  divine  blood  for  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

*Rcnaudot.  I.  162. 


THE  LITURGIES.  753 

and  to  life  eternal."     In  the  Ttomiin  Canon  :  *'  Free  me  by  Thy 
holy  body  and  blood  from  all  my  iniquities,  and  all  evils." 

In  the  Service  of  Gregory  the  Great,  the  formula  of  distri 
bution  is  :  "  The  body  —  the  blood  —  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
preserve  thy  soul." 

In  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  the  form  was:  "The  body  — 
blood  —  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  preserve  thy  soul  unto  ever- 
lasting life." 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions  direct  that  before  the  Com- 
munion, the  deacon  shall  make  proclamation :  "  Let  none  of 
the  catechumens,  none  of  the  unbelievers,  none  of  the  hetero- 
dox be  present.  Let  no  one  come  in  hypocrisy.  Let  us  all 
stand  before  the  Lord  with  fear  and  trembling,  to  offer  our 
sacrifice."  The  prayer  is  made :  "  Send  down  Thy  Holy  Spirit, 
that  He  may  show  this  bread  (to  be)  the  body  of  Thy  Christ, 
and  this  cup  the  blood  of  Thy  Christ  (apopheenee  ton  arton 
touton  soma  tou  Christou  sou)."  Here,  in  the  earliest  form,  the 
true  function  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Supper  is  clearly  stated 
—  not  the  consummation  of  the  sacramental  mystery,  by  His 
working,  but  the  illumination  of  the  soul,  so  that  it  nia}^  in 
faith  grasp  the  great  mystery  there  existent,  and  may  have 
shown  to  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost  that  the  bread  and  cup  are  in- 
deed the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

After  the  Communion,  the  deacon  says:  "  Having  received 
the  precious  body  and  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  let  us  give 
thanks  to  Him  who  hath  accounted  us  worthy  to  be  partakers 
of  these  His  holy  mysteries."*  In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James, 
after  the  Communion,  the  deacon  says  :  "  We  thank  Thee,  0 
Christ,  our  God,  that  Thou  hast  thought  us  worthy  to  be  par- 
takers of  Thy  body  and  blood,  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
everlasting  life  ;  "  and  the  bishop  says  :  "  Thou  hast  given  us, 
0  God,  Thy  sanctification  in  the  partaking  of  the  holy  body 
and  of  the  precious  blood  of  Thine  only-begotten  Son,  Jesus 
Christ."  The  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark:  "  AYe  render  thanks  to 
Thee,  0  Master,  Lord  our  God,  for  the  participation  of  Thy 
holy,  undefiled,  immortal,  and  heavenly  mysteries  which  Thou 
hast  given  us." 

*  dementis  Opera  Omnia.  Paris,  1857.     Constitut.  Apostol.  L.  VIII.  xii.-xiY. 
48 


754  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

TLvj  Ancient  Gallican  Missal :  *  "  As  we  do  now  show  forth 
the  verity  of  this  heavenly  Sacrament,  so  may  we  cleave  unto 
the  verity  itself  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood."  The 
MozARABic:  f  "Hail,  sacred  flesh!  forever  highest  sweet- 
ness. I  will  take  the  bread  of  heaven,  and  call  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  Having  our  strength  renewed  by  Christ's 
body  and  blood,  and  being  sanctified  by  the  same,  we  will 
render  thanks  unto  God."  The  Ambrosian  : :[:  "What  we 
have  taken  with  the  mouth,  0  Lord,  may  we  receive  with 
pure  mind  ;  that  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  .  .  .  we 
may  have  perpetual  healing."  Through  the  whole  of  the 
worship  of  the  Christian  ages  runs  the  confession  that  it  is  the 
undivided  person  of  Christ  to  which  the  heart  of  the  Church 
turns :  a  Christ  w^ho  is  everywhere  God,  everywhere  man  ;  a 
Christ  in  whom  dwells  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily ;  a 
Christ  who  has  passed  through  all  the  heavens,  and  ascended 
up  far  above  them  all,  that  he  might  fill  all  things. 

With  these  breathings  compare  the  private  prayers  of  the  old 
saints  which  have  been  left  on  record, —  the  prayers  of  Ambrose, 
Basil,  Chrysostom,  Damascenus,  and  Aquinas,  —  which  show 
how  lowly,  how  tender,  how  trusting  is  the  spirit  inspired  by 
a  healthful  recognition  of  the  great  abiding  mystery  of  the 
jN"ew  Dispensation. 

Jesu  pie  quern  nunc  velatum  adspicio, 
Quando  fiet  illud,  quod  jam  sitio, 
Ut  te  revelata  cernens  facie 
Visu  sim  beatus  tuae  gloria3  ?  ^ 

*Martene:  De  Antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus.  Ed,  Noviss,  Venitiis.  1783.  4  vols.  Fol. 
I.  166.  -j- Do.  171.  J  Do.  175.  Martene  gives  about  forty  orders  of  service,  all 
having  the  common  element  of  a  complete  recognition  of  the  sacramental  mystery. 

§  [0  holy  Jesus,  whom  veiled  I  now  behold,  when  shall  that  be  for  which  I 
thirst,  when,  beholding  Thee  with  open  face,  I  shall  be  blessed  in  the  sight  of 
Thy  glory  ?]     The  Hymn  of  Aquinas  :  Adoro  te. 


XIV. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  DOCTRINE  OF 
THE  LORD'S  SUPPER,  AS  CONFESSED  BY  THE  LU- 
THERAN CHURCH. 


THE  objections  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  almost  without 
exception  involve  the  false  definition  of  it  which  is  couched 
in  the  words  ''  Consubstantiation,"  ''  Impanation."  From  the 
time  that  the  passions  of  men  w^ere  roused  in  the  j  objections 
Sacramentarian  controversy,  these  terms  of  reproach  derived  from  » 

,  .  •  -v-r  1  1       I'also  definition. 

were  freely  used  against  it.  No  man  used  such 
terms  more  bitterly  than  Zwingle.  Yet  not  only  did  Zwiugle, 
in  his  original  doctrine,  when  he  rejected  Transubstantiation, 
accept,  and  for  years  retain,  the  same  Eucharistic  doctrine  as 
Luther,*  but  even  subsequently  to  his  rejection  of  the  doctrine 
he  acknowledged  that  it  had  not  the  offensive  characteristics 
he  afterward  so  freely  imputed  to  it.  He  wrote  in  ^  ^^^  ^^.  .^_ 
1526:  "You  steadfastly  affirm  that  the  true  flesh  aiiy  made.- 
of  Christ  is  here  eaten,  under  the  bread,  but  in  an  ^''''°"'^- 
ineffable  mode  "  (sed  modo  quodam  inetfabili).t  But  the  moral 
descent  of  error  is  very  rapid.  Before  Luther  had  written  a 
line  against  him,  Zwingle  had  styled  the  believers  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  true  presence,  "  Carnivorse,  Anthropophagites,  Can- 
nibals," "  a  stupid  race  of  men  ; "  the  doctrine  itself  he  pro- 
nounced ''impious,  foolish,  inhuman,"  and  that  its  practical 
consequence  was  "  loss  of  the  faith."    But  so  much  is  confessed 

*See  Lampe  :  Synops.  H.  E.,  1721,  332.  Cyprian,  Unterricht,  v.  Kirchl.  Verein- 
ignng,  1726,  163.  Zwingle:  Comm.  de  ver.  et  fals.  relig.  Apolog.  Libel,  de  Can. 
Missae. 

fAd  Theod.  Billican.  et  Urb.  Rhegius  Epistol.  respons.  Huld.  Zwinglii. 
Cypriau  :  Unterr.  176. 

765 


756  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

that  Zwingle  when  he  held  this  doctrine,  and  Zwingle  when  he 
yielded  it,  and  was  yet  comparatively  just,  acknowledged  that 
it  taught  "<7?i  ineffable  mode.'' 

The  same  is  true  of  (Ecolampadius.     He  not  only  at  first 
held  but  zealously  defended  the  same  doctrine  with  Luther  ; 
2    cEcoian.p.v  dcfcndcd  it  against  the  very  charge  involved  in 
di"^-  the  name,  "  Consubstantiation."     In  his  sermon  on 

the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  preached  in  1521,*  he  says: 
"  I  do  not  pronounce  it  a  mere  figure,  such  as  was  the  Paschal 
Lamb.  Far  from  us  be  the  blasphemy  of  attributing  to  the 
shadow  as  much  as  to  the  light  and  truth  ;  and  to  those  figures 
as  much  as  to  the  most  sacred  mystery.  For  this  bread  is  not 
merely  a  sign,  but  is  the  very  body  of  the  Lord  itself  (sed  est 
corpus  ipsnm  Domini).  We  simply  confess,  therefore,  that  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  and  contained ;  but  in 
what  manner  (quo  pacto),  we  do  not  seek  to  discover  ;  nor  is  it 
necessary  nor  useful  that  we  should.  .  .  In  what  mode.  He 
who  sits  above  the  heavens,  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  is 
truly  present  on  the  altars,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  thing  which  it 
is  impossible  for  us  to  know,  is  a  matter  which  should  not  dis- 
turb us.  What  wonder  is  it  since  we  know  not  in  what  mode 
Christ,  after  His  resurrection,  came  into  the  presence  of  His 
disciples  while  the  doors  were  closed?  .  .  .  What  is  that  thing 
of  inestimable  price  which  is  hidden  within  this  covering  (intra 
involucrum  hoc  delitescit)  ?  It  is  the  true  body  and  true  blood 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  — that  body  which  was  born,  sufiered, 
died  for  us,  and  was  afterward  glorified  in  the  triumph  of  the 
Resurrection  and  Ascension." 

The  attitude  of  Calvin  has  been  already  illustrated.  At 
Strasburg  he  took  his  place  among  Lutheran  ministers,  signed 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  (1539),  represented  the 
Lutheran  Church  at  various  conferences,  was  charged  with 
holding  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation,  was  complained  of 
at  a  later  period  (1557),  by  the  preachers  and  the  Theological 
Faculty  at  Zurich,  as  ''  wishing  to  unite  his  doc- 
trine with  that  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  in 
the  very  least  degree  unlike  (minime  dispares)."     The  same 

*  Cyprian:    Unterr.  183. 


OBJECTION  ANSWERED  — LUTHER.  Ibl 

Faculty,  in  1572,  wrote:  "Calvin,  of  blessed  memory,  seemed, 
to  pious  and  learned  men  in  France,  not  to  be  in  unity  with 
our  Churches  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

The  reproach  of  teaching  such  a  carnal  presence  as  is  involved 
in  the  word  Consubstantiation  is  therefore  an  after-thought 
of  opponents,  llow  groundless  it  is,  can  be  made  evident  by 
a  long  array  of  v^itnesses.  "  I  will  call  it,"  says  Luther,*  "  a 
Sacramental  Unity,  forasmuch  as  the  body  of  Christ  and  bread 
are  there  ^iven  us  as  Sacrament :  for  there  is  not  a      ^, .   ,. 

^  Objection 

natural  or  personal  unity,  as  in  God  and  Christ ;  it  nnswered. 
is  perhaps  also  a  different  unity  from  that  which  ^'  ^^"''''''■• 
the  Dove  had  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Flame  with  the 
Angel  (Exod.  iii.  2)  —  in  a  word,  it  is  a  Sacramental  Unity." 
"  We  are  not  so  insane,"  says  Luther,  elsewhere,f  "as  to  believe 
that  Christ's  body  is  in  this  bread,  in  the  gross  visible  manner 
in  which  bread  is  in  a  basket,  or  w^ine  in  the  cup,  as  the  fana- 
tics would  like  to  impute  it  to  us.  .  .  As  the  Fathers,  and  we, 
at  times,  express  it,  that  Christ's  body  is  in  the  bread,  is  done 
for  the  simple  purpose  of  confessing  that  Christ's  body  is  there. 
This  fixed,  it  might  be  permitted  to  say.  It  is  in  the  bread,  or, 
It  is  the  bread,  or.  It  is  where  the  bread  is,  or  as  you  please 
(wie  man  will).  We  will  not  strive  about  words,  so  long  as  the 
meaning  is  fixed ;  that  it  is  not  mere  bread  we  eat  in  the  Supper, 
but  the  body  of  Christ."  In  1537,  he  wrote  to  the  Swiss :  % 
"  In  regard  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
we  have  never  taught,  nor  do  we  now  teach,  either  that  Christ 
descends  from  heaven  or  from  God's  right  hand,  or  that  He 
ascends,  either  visibly  or  invisibly.  We  stand  fast  by  the 
Article  of  Faith,  '  He  ascended  into  heaven  ;  He  sitteth  at  the 
right  hand  of  God.'  And  we  commit  to  the  divine  omnipo- 
tence, in  what  way  (wie,quomodo)  His  body  and  blood  are  given 
to  us  in  the  Supper.  .  .  We  do  not  imagine  any  ascent  or  de- 
scent, but  merely  hold  fast  in  simplicity  to  His  words,  This  is 
My  Body;  This  is  My  Blood."     Luther  says,  in  his  Larger 

*\Verke:   Altenb.  III.  864;   Leipz.  XIX.  496.     (Bek.  v.  Abendm.,  1528.) 
fWerke:    Altenb.  III.  709;    Leipz.  XIX.  406.     (Serm.  v.  Sacra.,  1526.) 
jWerke:  Leipz.  XXL  108;  Jena,  VL  507;  Witteb.  XIL  205;  Altenb.  VL  4; 
Walch,  XVII.  2594.     Briefe:  De  Wette,  V.  83  ;  Buddeus:  258. 


758  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION 

Confession :  "  It  is  rightly  and  truly  said,  when  the  bread  is 
shown,  touched,  or  eaten,  that  Christ's  body  is  shown,  touched, 
and  eaten."  This  sentence,  perhaps  more  than  any  he  ever 
wrote,  has  been  urged  to  show  that  he  held  the  doctrine  of 
Consubstantiation.  But  that  he  used  these  words  in  "  no 
Capernaitish,  or  natural  sense,  but  in  a  mystic  and  sacramental 
sense,  to  indicate  that  in  the  use  of  this  Sacrament  the  bread 
and  body  are  most  presentially  united  and  unitedly  present,""'' 
is  very  clear  from  his  whole  train  of  thought  and  the  words 
that  follow  :  ''  This  remains  fixed,  that  no  one  perceives  the  body 
of  Christ,  or  touches  it,  or  bruises  it  with  the  teeth :  yet  is  it 
most  sure  that  what  is  done  to  the  bread,  is,  in  virtue  of  the  sacra- 
mental  Union,  Y\ght\y  and  truly  attributed  to  the  body  of  Christ." 
It  is  very  clear  that  Luther  is  availing  himself,  in  this  line  of 
thought,  of  the  distinction  made  in  the  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ.  That  is  afiirmed  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
mental Concrete  which  is  denied  of  it  in  the  natural  abstract. 
The  consecrated  bread  is  so  far  sacrarnentcdhj  identified  with  this 
body,  of  which  it  is  the  Communion,  that  in  a  sacramental  sense 
that  can  be  affirmed  of  this  body  which  is  not  true  of  it  in  a 
natural  sense.  So  in  Christ  Jesus  we  can  say,  speaking  in  the 
personal  Concrete,  God  bled,  God  died  ;  that  is,  such  is  the  per- 
sonal concrete  that  we  can  "  rightly  and  truly  "  make  personal 
affirmation  in  words  which,  if  they  expressed  a  natural  abstract, 
would  not  be  true.  If  the  term  God  is  used  to  designate  this 
abstract  of  nature,  it  is  thus  equivalent  to  divinity,  and  it  is 
heterodox  to  say  divinity,  or  the  divine  nature,  or  God,  in 
that  sense,  suffered.  In  sacramental  concreteness  then,  not  in 
natural  abstractness,  according  to  Luther,  is  the  body  of  Christ 
eaten.  What  is  eaten  is  both  bread  and  Christ's  body.  Both 
are  eaten  l»y  one  and  the  same  objective  act ;  but  because  of  the 
difference  in  the  modes  of  their  presence,  and  the  nature  of  the 
object  —  the  one  being  a  natural  ol)ject,  present  in  a  ratural 
mode,  the  other  a  supernatural  object,  present  in  a  super- 
natural mode,  the  one  objective  act  is  natural  in  its  relation 
to  the  natural,  and  supernatural  in  its  relation  to  the  super- 
natural.    So  to  the  eye  of  the  prophet's  servant,  by  one  objec- 

*IIuttcr:    Lib.  Clir.  Concord.  Explicat.,  6"J5. 


COLLOQUIES   WTTII  THE  ZWINGLIANS.  759 

tive  act  there  was  a  natural  vision  of  the  natural  hills  around 
the  city,  and  a  supernatural  vision  of  the  supernatural  hosts  — 
the  horses  of  fire,  and  chariots  of  fire.  So  to  the  hand  of  the 
woman,  hy  one  objective  act  there  was  a  natural  touch  of  the 
natural  garment  of  the  Saviour,  and  a  supernatural  touch  of 
the  divine  virtue,  which  the  garment  veiled.  So  to  the  blind 
man  who  washed  in  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  by  one  objective  act 
(if  washing  there  was  a  natural  removal  of  the  clay,  and  a  super- 
natural virtue  which  removed  the  blindness.  In  his  Book: 
''  That  the  words  yet  stand  firm,"^  Luther  says:  "How  it  takes 
place.  .  .  we  know  not,  nor  should  we  know.  We  should  be- 
lieve God's  word,  and  not  prescribe  mode  or  measure  to  Him." 
The  true  intent  of  our  Church,  in  the  language  used  in  regard 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  shown  in  the  definitions  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  early  efforts  at  producing  harmony  with  the 
Zwinglians.  When  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  invited  Luther  to 
a  Colloquy  with  Zwingle  at  Marburg  (Oct.  1529),  Luther  replied: 
"  Though  I  cherish  little  hope  of  a  future  peace,  yet  the  dili- 
gence and  solicitous  care  of  Your  Highness  in  this  .^  couoquies 
matter  is  very  greatly  to  be  praised.  .  .  God  help-  with  the  zwing. 
ing  me,  I  shall  not  permit  those,  of  the  adverse 
part,  to  claim  with  justice  that  they  are  more  earnestly  desir- 
ous of  peace  and  concord  than  I  am."  In  that  Colloquy,  the 
parties  were  agreed :  "  That  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  is  the 
Sacrament  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
the  spiritual  eating  and  drinking  of  the  body  and  blood  is  spe- 
cially (prsecipue)  necessary."  When  Melancthon  drew  up  a  brief 
statement  of  the  points  of  difference  between  the  view  of  the 
Zwinglians,  he  speaks  of  two  general  modes  of  the  presence 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  — the  one  local,  the  other  the  ''  mode  un- 
known (arcano)  by  which  diverse  places  are  simultaneously 
present,  as  one  point  to  the  person  Christ.  .  .  Although  we 
say  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  really  present,  yet  Luther  does 
not  say  that  it  is  present  locally,  that  is,  in  dimension  (mole;, 
circumscriptively,  but  by  that  mode,  by  which  the  person  of 
Christ,  or  the  whole  Christ,  is  present  to  His  entire  Church  and 
to  all  creatures."     The  comparison  of  vio^ra  finally  led  to  the 

*  Werke  :  Jena,  III.  341. 


760  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

WitteiiLerg  Concord,  touching  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  entered 
into  by  Bucer,  Capito,  Muscuhis,  and  others  originally  of  the 
Zwinglian  party,  and  Luther,  Melancthon,  Cruciger,  Bugen- 
HAGEN,  Mexius,  and  Myconius.  In  this  Concord,  both  united 
in  declaring :  ^ 

1.  "  That  according  to  the  words  of  Irenseus,  there  are  two 
things  in  this  Sacrament,  —  a  heavenly  and  an  earthly.  They 
believe,  therefore,  and  teach,  that  with  (cum)  the  bread  and 
wine,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  essentially 
present,  imparted  (exhiberi),  and  taken. 

2.  ''  And  although  they  disapprove  of  Transubstantiation, 
and  do  not  believe  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  locally  included 
in  the  bread,  or  that  it  is  in  any  other  wise  (alioqui,sonst)  united 
corporeally  with  the  bread,  apart  from  the  participation  of  the 
Sacrament,  yet  they  confess  and  believe,  that  through  the 
Sacramental  Unity,  the  bread  is  Christ's  body  ;  that  is,  they 
hold  that  when  the  bread  is  given  the  body  of  Christ  is  truly 
present  at  the  same  time,  and  truly  given. 

3.  "  To  the  unworthy  also  are  truly  imparted  (exhiberi)  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  but  such  receive  it  to  judgment ;  for 
they  abuse  the  Sacrament,  by  receiving  it  without  true  repent- 
ance and  faith. 

4.  ''  For  it  was  instituted  to  testify  that  the  grace  and  bene- 
fits of  Christ  are  applied  to  those  who  receive  it ;  and  that 
they  are  truly  inserted  into  Christ's  body,  and  washed  by  His 
blood,  who  truly  repent,  and  comfort  themselves  by  faith  in 
Christ. 

5.  "  They  confess  that  they  will  hold  and  teach  in  all  articles 
what  has  been  set  forth  in  the  Articles  of  the  Confession  "  (the 
Augsburg)  "  and  the  Apology  of  the  Evangelical  Princes." 

In  the  Heidelberg  Discussion  (1560),  the  Fifteenth  Thesis 
maintained  by  the  Lutheran  divines  was  this  :  "  We  repudiate 
Heidelberg  ^^^^  thosc  gross  and  monstrous  opinions  which  some 
Discussion,  1560.  falscly  iuiputc  to  us,  to  wit.  Popish  transubstantia- 
tion, local  inclusion,  extension  or  expansion  of  the  body  of 

*Chytraius:  Hist.  A.  C.  Lat.,  1578,  G80.  Germ.,  1580,  374.  French,  1582, 
497.  Seckendorf:  Hist.  Luth.,  lib.  iii.,  p.  133.  Loescher  :  Hist.  Motuum,  i.  205. 
Rudelbach :  Ilef.  Luth.  u.  Union,  669. 


Brontius,  1570. 


BRENTIUS.  761 

Christ,  mingling  of  the  bread  and   wine  with  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ/'* 

BRENTiusf  (1570)  belongs  to  the  first  order  of  the  men  of  his 
era,  and,  as  an  authoritative  witness,  is  perhaps  next  to  Luther 
himself.  He  says:  "  It  is  not  obscure  that  a  human 
body  can,  by  its  own  nature,  be  in  but  one  place ; 
but  this  is  to  be  understood  as  reo-ardino;  the  manner  of  this 
outward  world.  Whence  also  Christ  himself,  even  when,  after 
His  resurrection.  He  was  in  the  kingdom  of  His  Father,  yet 
when  He  appeared  to  His  disciples  in  this  world,  appeared  in 
one  place  onl3^  But  far  other  is  the  manner  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom.  For  in  it,  as  there  is  no  distinction  of  times,  but  all 
are  one  eternal  moment,  so  is  there  no  distinction  of  places, 
but  all  are  one  place,  nay,  no  place,  nay,  nothing  of  those  things 
which  human  reason  can  think  —  'which  eye  hath  not  seen 
(says  Paul),  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart 
of  man.'  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  Christ  is  in  the  heavenly 
kingdom,  and  the  Supper  of  Christ  also  is  heavenly,  we  are  not, 
in  the  celebration  of  it,  to  think  of  a  certain  magnitude,  or  little- 
ness, or  even  local  position  or  circumscription  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  but  every  carnal  imagination  being  cast  aside,  we  are 
to  rest  w^ith  obedient  faith  in  the  word  of  Christ."  "As  we 
have  said  before,  there  is  here  no  magnitude  or  littleness,  or 
length  or  thickness,  or  any  sort  of  carnal  tenuity  to  be  imagined. 
Of  a  surety  as  bread  and  wine  are  truly  present,  so  also  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present,  but  each  in  its  own 
mode  :  the  bread  and  wine  are  present  in  a  visible  and  corporeal 
mode,  the  body  and  blood  in  a  mode  invisible,  spiritual,  and 
heavenly,  and  unsearchable  by  human  reason.  For  as  the 
capacity  of  man  cannot  grasp  in  what  mode  Christ,  true  God 
and  true  man,  when  He  '  ascends  above  all  heavens,  fills  all 
things,'  so  it  cannot  reach  by  its  own  thoughts  in  what  mode  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the  Supper."  f  "  Christ's 
body  and  blood  are  present,  not  transubstantially  (as  the  Papists 

*Grundlich.  Wahrhaftig.  Historia  d.  Augs.  Conf.  Leipz.,  1584,  fol.  436.  Do. 
in  Latin,  ling.  ti*ansl.  pei-  Godfried,  Lipsioe,  1585,  4to,  545. 

f  Catechesimus  pia  et  util.  explicat.  illustrat.  Witteberg,  1552,  12mo,  GG1-GG7. 
Cf :  Evang.  sec.  Joann,  Homil.  explic.  Francf.,  1554,  fol.  670. 


762  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION: 

dream),  nor  locally  (as  some  calumniouslj  assert  we  believe).  .  .  . 
Ours  have  often,  and  at  large,  testified  in  express  words  that 
they  in  no  manner  attribute  local  space  to  the  presence  of  the 
body  of  Christ  in  the  bread.  We  are  therefore  unjustly 
accused  of  drawing  down  Christ's  body  from  heaven,  or  includ- 
ing it  locally  in  the  bread,  or  of  making  a  Christ  of  many  bodies 
and  of  many  places."  *  "We  do  not  deny  that  there  is  a  sense 
in  which  it  can  be  tv\x\y  said  that  Christ  is  on  the  earth,  or  in 
the  Supper,  only  according  to  fjuxta)  the  divine  nature  .  .  .  that 
is,  though  Christ,  true  God  and  man,  fills  all  things  both  by 
His  divinity  and  humanity,  yet  lie  has  not  the  majesty  ori- 
ginally from  the  humanity  itself,  which  by  its  own  nature  can 
only  be  in  one  place,  but  has  it  alone  from  the  divinity,  from 
which  however  the  humanity  is  in  no  place  separated."  \  "  As 
a  thousand  years  before  God  are  scarce  one  day,  nay  rather, 
not  one  moment,  so  a  thousand  places  are  before  Him,  not  a 
thousand  places,  but  rather  the  minutest  point."  :j:  "  All  places 
above  and  beneath  are  to  Ilini  one  place,  nay,  no  place,  nay,  no 
point  or  place.  .  .  Such  terms  applied  to  Him,  as  '  filling  '  the 
heavens,  'being  everywhere,' '  dwelling,'  '  descending,'  'ascend- 
ing,' are  but  transfers  of  metaphor."  § 

The  Formula  of  Concord  ||  (1580),  in  defining  its  own  posi- 
tion, quotes  and  indorses  Luther's  words:  "Christ's  body  has 
three  modes  of  presence  :  First.  The  comprehensible,  corporeal 
mode,  such  as  He  used  when  He  was  on  earth,  —  the  local.  To 
this  mode  of  presence  the  Scripture  refers  when  it  says,  Christ 

For  mil  la  of  has  Icft  thc  world.  Second.  In  another  incompre- 
c.ncord,  i5?o.  hcusible  and  spiritual  mode  it  can  be  present 
illocally.  Moreover,  it  can  be  present  in  a  divine  and  heavenly 
mode,  since  it  is  one  person  with  God."  The  current  error 
about  this  view  of  our  Church  is,  that  she  holds  that  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the  first  of  these  modes, — 

*De  personali  Unione,  Tiibingae,  1561,  4to,  1,  2. 

f  Sententia  de  Libello  Bullinger,  Tiibingae,  1561,  4to,  XII.  See  also  his  book: 
"De  Majestate  Domini  et  de  vera  praesentia  Corp.  et  Sang,  ejus  Frnncofort, 
1562,  4to  ;  "  and  his  "  Recognitio  Prophetic,  et  Apostol.  Doctrinie,  Tiibingae,  1564." 

X  In  Lib.  I  Sam.  Horn.  XIV.  I  Contra  Asotum.  Poric.  II. 

II  667.  98-103. 


CHEMNITZ.  763 

a  view  she  entirely  rejects.  Though  she  denies  that  this  pres- 
ence is  merely  spiritual,  —  if  the  word  spiritual  means  such  as  is 
wrought  hy  our  spirit,  our  meditations,  our  faith,  —  yet,  over 
against  all  carnal  or  local  presence,  she  maintains  that  it  is 
spiritual.  "  When,"  says  the  Formula  of  Concord,  *  "  Br. 
Luther  or  we  use  this  word  '  spiritually,'  in  reference  to  this 
matter,  we  mean  that  spiritual.,  supernatural.,  heavenly  mode, 
according  to  which  Christ  is  present  at  the  Holy  Supper.  .  .  . 
By  that  word  'spiritually,'  we  design  to  exclude  those  Caper- 
naitish  imaginings  of  a  gross  and  carnal  presence,  which,  after 
so  many  public  protestations  on  the  part  of  our  Churches,  the 
Sacramentarians  still  try  to  fix  on  them.  In  this  sense  we  say 
that  the  hody  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  is  received, 
eaten,  and  drunken  spiritually.  .  .  .  The  mode  is  spiritual.'^ 
"  We  reject  and  condemn,  with  unanimous  consent,  the  Papal 
Transubstantiation."  "  We  reject  and  condemn  with  heart 
and  mouth,  as  false  and  full  of  fraud,  first  of  all,  the  Popish 
Transubstantiation."  "It  is  said  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  '  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,'  and  '  in  the 
Supper,'  not  to  imply  a  local  conjunction  or  presence,  but  for 
other  and  very  different  reasons."  "-  Our  first  reason  for  using 
the  phrases,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  under,  with,  in,  the 
bread,  is  by  them  to  reject  the  Popish  Transubstantiation,  and 
to  set  forth  that  the  substance  of  the  bread  is  unchanged." 
The  words  ''  under  "  and  "-  in  "  are  meant  to  teach  that  ''  the 
bread  which  we  break,  and  the  cup  we  bless,  are  the  Communion 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  "  that  is,  communicate  that 
body  and  blood  to  us,  —  or,  in  other  words,  we  receive  the 
body  and  blood,  with  the  bread  and  wine,  or  "  in  "  or  "  under  " 
them  as  a  medium.  By,  in,  with,  and  under  the  act  of  receiv- 
ing the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  truly  and  naturally,  we 
receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  substantially  present, 
truly  and  supernaturally,  after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner. 
Chemnitz  (f  1586) :  f  "  AH  these  passages  of  Scripture  with 
wonderful  accord  show,  prove,  and  confirm  the  proper  and 
simple   doctrine   that   the  Lord's  Supper  consists 

A  .  Chemnitz,  I086. 

not  only  of  the  outward  symbols  of  bread  and  wine, 

*G70,  105,  108;  G41,  34;  511,  22.  f  De  Fuudam.  SS.  Coeuae.  ch.  IX. 


764  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

but  also  of  the  very  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  .  .  .  But  by 
what  mode  (quo  modo)  this  takes  place,  or  can  take  place,  it  is 
not  for  me  to  search  out  (nieum  non  est  inquirere)." 

Akdre^  (tl590),*  to  whom  more,  perhaps,  than  to  any  other 

theologian,  we  owe  the  Formula  of  Concord,  says :  "  From  the 

sinister  and  perverted  interpretation  of  Luther's 

Andre*,  1590.  ,  •  /.     i  ^  ^  a^i      •       9       i        i 

meaning,  as  if  he  taught  that  Christ  s  body  is 
affixed  to  the  bread,  or  imprisoned  in  it,  both  lie  and  those  who 
stand  with  him  are  far  removed.  To  say  and  teach  that  the 
bread  signifies  the  body  of  Christ,  is  a  figure,  is  also  a  sign  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  if  the  terms  be  rightly  understood,  dero- 
gates nothing  from  the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  words.  For 
who  denies  that  the  bread  is  a  figure  or  sign  of  the  body  of 
Christ  ?  .  .  .  But  if  any  one  contend  that  the  bread  is  a  naked 
sign,  an  empty  figure,  and  signification,  of  a  body  not  present 
but  absent,  he  sets  forth  a  doctrine  at  war  with  the  teachings 
of  Christ  and  of  Paul.  .  .  .  The  word  '  corporeally  '  may  be 
used  in  three  ways:  First.  Xaturally,  as  the  Capernaites  con- 
strued our  Lord's  w^ords,  when  lie  spoke  of  '  eating  His  flesh 
and  drinkino;  His  blood.'  Second.  To  indicate  that  not  naked 
signs  and  figures  of  the  body  of  Christ  are  present,  but  that 
there  is  given  to  us  with  the  bread  that  very  body  which  was 
crucified  for  us.  Third.  To  mark  the  outward  and  corporate 
signs,  bread  and  wine,  inasmuch  as  Christ  imparts  to  us  His 
body,  spiritual  food,  corporeally ;  that  is,  with  corporeal  things 
or  signs.  For  bread  and  wine  are  corporate  things,  w^ith  which 
at  the  same  time  is  extended  spiritual  food  and  drink.  .  .  . 
Luther  used  the  terras  to  teach  that  with  the  bread  and  wine 
are  imparted  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  heavenly  food, 
with  which  the  soul  is  refreshed  and  the  body  strengthened 
to  inmiortality.  ...  By  the  word  '  spiritually,'  we  understand 
is  indicated  a  mode  which  is  heavenly  and  spiritual,  above  the 
order  of  nature:  a  mode  which  can  only  be  grasped  by  faith ;  a 
mode  beyond  the  reach  of  our  present  reason  and  understand- 
ing —  one  of  God's  greatest  mysteries.  .  .  .  The  mode  is  no 
natural  one,  but  recondite  and  heavenly.  .  .  .  With  this  mys- 
tery, locality  has  nothing  to  do.  .  .  .  If  it  had,  one  of  these 

*De  Ccena  Domini.  Franco!'.  lo5U,  12mo.     27,  J'J,  33,  30,  40,  48,  72,  70. 


ANDRE^E.  765 

opinions  would  necessarily  follow:  Either  that  the  hody  of 
Christ  is  extended  into  all  places,  or  that  it  is  hurried  from  one 
place  to  another,  or  that  innumerable  bodies  of  Christ  are 
daily  everywhere  made  from  particles  of  bread  (the  Popish 
halucination\  But  each  one  of  these  views  weakens  and  utterly 
takes  away  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ.  If  the  body  of 
Christ  were  expanded  into  all  places  of  the  world,  it  would  not 
be  communicated  entire  anywhere,  but  one  part  would  be  dis- 
tributed here,  another  there.  That  the  body  of  Christ  is  borne 
from  place  to  place,  and  passes  into  the  bread,  is  an  affirmation 
wliich  con  Id  only  be  made  by  one  who  had  lost  his  senses  ;  and 
were  this  not  so,  the  theory  would  imply  that  the  body  cannot 
be  present  in  all  places  at  the  same  moment.  Add  to  this  that 
such  a  doctrine  is  directly  in  conflict  with  Holy  Scripture.  As 
to  the  third  view,  we  have  shown  in  our  previous  discussion  how 
contradictory,  how  abhorrent  to  the  Christian  religion  and  our 
faith,  is  the  idea  that  many  bodies  are  formed  of  the  substance 
of  bread,  as  by  a  prayer  of  magic. 

"  Set  therefore  before  thee  that  Christ  who  is  neither  ex- 
tended into  all  places  nor  borne  from  one  place  to  another  ; 
but  who  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  there  im- 
parts to  thee  His  flesh  and  blood.  ...  Is  it  not  possible  for 
thee  to  understand  this  mystery,  in  what  manner  divine  power 
effects  this  ?  This  mystery  faith  alone  grasps.  In  what  way 
(quo  pacto)  body  and  blood  are  communicated  to  us  in  this 
Sacrament  is  so  great  a  thing  that  the  mind  of  man  in  this  life 
cannot  comprehend  it.  .  .  .  The  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  given  in  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  way  which  He  knows, 
and  which  sorrowing  and  agitated  consciences  experience,  and 
which  surpasses  the  power  of  the  mind  of  man.  .  .  .  The  whole 
Christ  is  given  to  us  in  the  Sacrament  that  we  may  be  one  flesh 
with  Him." 

In  the  Colloquy  at  Montbeliard  *  (1586),  between  Beza,  as 
the  representative  of  Calvinism,  and  Andrews,  the  great 
Lutheran  divine  laid  down  first  in  his  Theses,  and  afterwards 
repeatedly  in  the  discussion,  the  principle  of  a  supernatural 

*Acta  Colloq.  Mont.  Belligart.  1594,  4to,  3,  5,  U3,  17.  Gespniech.etc.,  Tubing. 
1587,  4to,  4,  22,  25 


766  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

and  heavenly  presence  over  against  a  presence  which  is  natural, 
physical,  and  earthly.  In  his  conversation  v^ith  the  Baron  de 
Cleroan,  previous  to  the  Colloquy,  Andreoe  said:  "The  mode 
of  the  presence,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  natural  or  physical,  but 
heavenly  and  divine,  and  the  eating,  not  Capernaitish,  is  to  be 
committed  to  God  and  His  omnipotence.  .  .  .  Beza  and  his 
adherents  charge  the  Churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
with  teaching  a  Cyclopian  and  Capernaitish  eating— a  bruis- 
ing of  Christ's  body  with  the  teeth,  and  a  swallowing  it.  Such 
an  idea  never  entered  the  mind  of  Luther,  or  of  our  Church. 
.  .  .  From  all  the  writings  of  our  divines  not  a  letter  can  be 
produced  to  sustain  such  a  charge  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  have 
constantl}^  in  most  unmistakable  language,  condemned  the  idea 
of  such  an  eating."  In  the  Theses  prepared  for  the  Wirtem- 
berg  Theologians  by  Andrese,  the  Fourth  says :  "  We  do  not 
hold  a  physical  and  local  presence  or  inclusion  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ."  The  Tenth,  and  last,  affirms  :  "  The  mode  in 
which  the  body  and  blood  are  present  is  not  expressed  in 
Scripture ;  wherefore  we  can  only  affirm  so  nmch  in  regard 
to  it  that  it  is  supernatural,  and  incomprehensible  to  human 
reason.  .  .  .  Therefore  in  this  divine  Mystery  we  lead  our  reason 
captive,  and  with  simple  faith  and  quiet  conscience  rest  on  the 
words  of  Christ." 

HuTTER  (tl611):*  "When  we  use  the  particles  'in,  with, 
under,'  we  understand  no  local  inclusion  whatever,  either  Tran- 
substantiation  or  Consubstantiation."  "  Hence  is  clear  the 
odious  falsity  of  those  who  charge  our  churches  with  teaching 
that  '  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  is  literally  and  substantially 
the  body  of  Christ ; '  that  '  the  bread  and  bodv  con- 
stitute  one  substance  ;  that  '  the  body  of  Christ  m 
itself  (per  se^,  and  literally,  is  bruised  by  the  teeth,'  and  all  other 
monstrous  absurdities  (portentosa  absurda)  of  a  similar  nature. 
For  we  fearlessly  appeal  to  God,  the  searcher  of  hearts  and  the 
judge  of  consciences,  as  an  infallible  witness,  that  neither  by 
Luther  nor  any  of  ours  was  such  a  thing  ever  said,  written, 
or  thought  of."t 

*  Libri  Christians  Concordiae,  Explicatio,  Witteberg,  1608,  669. 
t  Do.  626,  624. 


0  SI  A  KD  ER—  CA  RPZ  0  V.  767 

Andrew  Osiander  (Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Tlibin- 
gen)  (t  1017) :  "  Our  theologians  for  years  long  have  strenu- 
ously denied  and  powerfaUy  covfatcd  the  doctrine 
of  a  local  inclusion,  or  physical  connection  of  the 
body  and  bread,  or  consubstantiation.  We  believe  in  no  im- 
panation,  subpanation,  companation,or  consubstantiation  of  the 
body  of  Christ ;  no  physical  or  local  inclusion  or  conjoining  of 
bread  and  body,  as  our  adversaries,  in  manifest  calumnies, 
allege  against  us.  The  expressions  in,  with,  and  under  are 
used,  first,  in  order  to  proscribe  the  monstrous  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  and  secondly,  to  assert  a  true  presence 
over  against  the  doctrine  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  mere 
sign."* 

Mentzer  (t  1627) :  f  "  There  is  no  local  concealment  of 
Christ's  body,  or  inclusion  of  particles  of  matter  under  the 
bread.     Far  from  us  be  it  that  any  believer  should   „ 

*;  ^  Mentzer,  1627. 

regard  Christ's  body  as  present  in  a  physical  or 

natural  mode.     The  eatins;  and  drinkins:  are  not  natural  or 

Capernaitish,  but  mystical  or  sacramental." 

John  Gerhard  (f  1637) :  :|:  "  On  account  of  the  calumnies  of 
our  adversaries,  we  would  note  that  we  do  not  believe  in  im- 
panation^  nor  in  Consubstantiation,  nor  in  any  physical  or  local 
presence.  Some  of  our  writers,  adopting  a  phrase  from  Cyril, 
have  called  the  presence  a  bodily  %  one  ;  but  they  use 
that  term  by  no  means  to  designate  the  mode  of 
presence,  but  simply  the  object "  (to  show  what  is  present,  to 
wit,  the  body  of  Christ,  but  not  how  it  is  present),  "  nor  have 
they  at  all  meant  by  this  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  present  in 
a  bodily  and  quantitative  manner."  "  We  believe  in  no  con- 
substantiative  presence  of  the  body  and  blood.  Far  from  us  be 
that  figment.  The  heavenly  thing  and  the  earthly  thing  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  not  present  with  each  other  physically 
and  naturally^  \ 

Carpzov  (t  1657) :  T  "To  compress  into  a  few  words  what  is 

*Disputat.  xiii.,  Ex  Concord.  Libro.     Francofurt,  1611,  pages  280,  288. 
t  Exeges.  Aug.  Conf.  t  Loci  (Cotta)  x.  165. 

§  Corporalem.  |]  See  also  Harmonia  Evang.,  ii.  1097. 

\  Isagoge,  345-350. 


768  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

most  important  in  regard  to  this  presence,  we  would  remark : 
1.  That  it  is  not  finite,  either  physical,  or  local,  or  definite,  but 
infinite  and  divine.  2.  That  as  there  is  not  one 
mode  only  of  divine  presence,  but  that  presence 
may  be  general^  or  gracious,  or  glorious,  as  the  scholastics  dis- 
tinguish it,  so  this  presence  (of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ) 
is  neither  to  be  referred  to  the  general  nor  the  glorious^  but  to 
\.\\Q  gracious  ;  so  that  it  constitutes  that  special  degree  of  this 
gracious  presence  which  is  styled  sacramental.  That  which  is 
supernatural  is  also  true  and  real.  When  this  presence  is  called 
substantial  and  bodily^  those  words  designate  not  the  mode  of 
presence,  but  the  object.  When  the  words  m,  with^  under ^ 
are  used,  our  traducers  know,  as  well  as  they  know  their  own 
fingers,  that  they  do  not  signify  a  Consubstantiation,  local 
co-existence,  or  impanation.  The  charge  that  we  hold  a  local 
inclusion,  or  Consubstantiation,is  a  calumny.  The  eating  and 
drinking  are  not  physical,  but  mystical  and  sacramental.  An 
action  is  not  necessarily  figurative  because  it  is  not  physical." 
Mus^us  (tl681):  *  ''On  the  question,  By  what  mode  (quo 
modo)  that  which  we  receive  and  eat  and  drink  in  the  Holy 
Supper  is  Christ's  body  and  blood,  we  freely  confess  our  ignor- 
ance."     ''The    sacramental    eating    is   sometimes 

Musneus,  1681.  ,,     ^  .    .  ,        -i  •  •  ,  . 

called  spiritual,  that  is,  an  eating  not  gross,  not 
carnal, but  wholly  incomprehensible  —  the  mode  is  supernatural, 
and  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  mind  of  man.  .  .  .  That  gross  and 
carnal  eating  which  the  Capernaites  (John  vi.)  imagined  is 
denied  by  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  when  Calvinists  attri- 
bute this  view  to  us,  they  are  guilty  of  calumny."t 

ScHERZER  (t  1683) :  :j:  To  the  objection  that  the  particles  "  in, 
with,  under,  imply  an  inclusion  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 

bread,  and  a  concealing  of  it  under  the  bread,  and 

Scherzer,  1683.  '  .  /»      i        i        i 

a  consequent  reduction  of  the  body  to  the  propor- 
tion and  dimensions  of  the  bread,"  he  says :  I.  "  From  presence 
to  locality,  no  inference  can  be  drawn.  Those  particles  imply 
presence,  not  locality.     For  they  are  exhibitive,  not  inclusive. 

*  De  Sacra.  Cocnn.  Jenne,  1()64,  83. 

f  Pra-lect.  in  Epilom.  Formul.  Concord.  Jvnx,  1701,  4lo,  250,  2G0. 

J  Collegium  Anti-Calvininnuni,  Lipsiac,  1704,  4to,  GOG,  G30,  632. 


CAL  onus— QU  ENS  TED  T.  769 

11.  Quantitative  proportion  is  required  to  local  inclusion,  but 
not  to  sacramental  presence.  In  the  German  hymn,  the  phrase  : 
'  Hidden  in  the  bread  so  small  (Verborgen  in  brod  so  klein)',  the 
'  Hidden,'  notes  a  mystic  hiding  —  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
not  open  to  the  senses ;  not  a  physical  one,  which  is  local ;  the 
words  '  so  small,'  are  a  limitation  of  the  breads  not  of  the  body.'* 
He  shows  that  Calvin,  Beza,  and  others  of  the  Calvinistic 
school,  use  these  particles  also.  '*  By  07-al^  we  do  not  mean  cor- 
poreal, in  the  Zwinglian  sense.  .  .  .  Corporeal  eating,  in  the 
Zwinglian  sense,  we  execrate  (execramur)." 

Calovius  (t  1686) :  *  "  The  mode  is  ineffiible,  and  indescrib- 
able by  us.  We  distinguish  betw^een  a  natural^  a  jpersonal^  and 
a  sacramental  presence,  in  which  last  sense  onh^  the 

1        1  i?  /-^i      •    ^   •  ^  mi  •  .  Calovius,  1686. 

body  ot  Christ  is  present.  .  .  .  ihere  is  no  question 
in  regard  to  a  CapernaiUsh  eating  and  drinking,  such  as  some 
of  the  hearers  of  our  Lord  at  Capernaum  dreamed  of  (John  vi. 
21) ;  as  if  Christ  had  taught  a  deglutition  of  His  body  ...  a 
swallowing  of  His  blood.  This  delirium,  our  adversaries  are 
accustomed  to  charge  upon  us  falsely  and  calumniously.  .  .  . 
The  mode  is  not  natural,  but  supernatural.  .  .  .  The  bread  is 
received  in  the  common^  natural  manner ;  the  body  of  Christ  in 
the  mystic^  supernatural  manner.  .  .  .  We  do  not  assert  any 
local  conjunction,  any  fusion  of  essences,  or  Consubstantiation,  as 
our  adversaries  attribute  it  to  us  ;  as  if  we  imasrined  that  the 
bread  and  the  body  of  Christ  pass  into  one  m.ass.  We  do  not 
say  that  the  body  is  included  in  the  bread,  but  only  that  there 
is  a  mystic  and  sacramental  conjunction  of  substance  with  sub- 
stance, without  any  insubstantiation  or  consubstantiation." 

QuENSTEDT  (f  1688)  f  :  "  The  manducation  and  drinking  are 
called  orc/i,  not  Avith  reference  to  the  mode,  but  to  the  organ. 
Luther  calls  it  corporeal ;  but  this  form  of  expres- 

.  .  ,  ,  -,        ^      ,  7  .n,  Quenstedt,  1688. 

sion  18  not  to  be  understood  of  the  ynode,  as  if  this 
spiritual  food  were  taken  in  a  natural  mode  as  other  food.  .  .  . 
Of  the  one  sacramental  or  oral  eating  and  drinking  there  are 
two  modes  —  the  physical  Siud  hyper-physical.  .  .  .  The  body  and 

•"■Synopsis  Controversiarum,  Wittenb.  1685,  4io.  Pp.  793,  8] 4.  See  also  Calovii: 
Apodixis  Artie.  Fid.  Wittenb.  1699,  4to.     P.  385. 

fTheologia.  Didactico-Polem.  Lipsise,  1715,  Fol.  II.,  1223,  1231,  1232. 
49 


770  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

blood  of  Christ  are  not  eaten  and  drunken  in  a  physical  mode. 
.  .  .  The  mode  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  is  mystic, 
supernatural, and  heavenly.  .  .  .  The  body  of  Christ  is  spiritual 
food,  nourishing  us  not  to  this  life,  but  to  the  spiritual  and 
heavenly  life.  .  .  .  The  body  of  Christ  does  not  enter  the  mouth, 
as  if  moved  from  without,  it  entered  locally,  deserting  its  former 
place,  and  taking  a  new  one  in  the  mouth.  .  .  .  There  is  no  dis- 
traction to  he  feared  in  that  food  which  is  present  with  a  divine 
presence.  Each  believer  enjoys  God  as  the  highest  good,  but 
the  same  presence  is  communicated  to  the  flesh  of  Christ." 

Baier,  J.  G.  (t  1695)'*:  "The  sacramental  union  is  neither 

substantial^  nor  personal,  nor  local.     Hence  it  is  manifest  that 

impanation  and  Consubstantiation.  which  are  charojed 

Baier  1695.  '  o 

upon  Lutherans  by  enemies,  are  utterly  excluded. 
There  is  no  sensible  or  natural  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
Alike  the  presence  and  the  eating  and  drinking  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  insensible,  supernatural,  unknown  to 
the  human  mind,  and  incomprehensible.  As  to  the  mode  in 
which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  and  received  in 
the  Supper,  we  may  acknowledge  our  ignorance,  while  we  firmly 
hold  to  the  fact.'''  The  same  distinguished  writer  published  a 
dissertation  on  "  Impanation  and  Consubstantiation,"  which  is 
entirely  devoted  to  the  vindication  of  our  Church  from  the 
charge  of  holding  these  errors,  f 

Leibnitz  (f  1716),:j:  distinguished  as  a  profound  theological 

thinker,  as  well  as  a  philosopher  of  the  hio;hest 

Leibnitz,  1716.  '  .  . 

order,  says :  ''  Those  who  receive  the  Evangelical 
(Lutheran)  faith  by  no  means  approve  the  doctrine  of  Consub- 
stantiation, or  of  impanation,  nor  can  any  one  impute  it  to 
them,  unless  from  a  misunderstanding  of  what  they  hold." 

Buddeus  (t  1728)  :  "All  who  understand  the  doctrines  of 
our  Church  know  that  with  our  whole  soul  we  abhor  the 
doctrine  of  Consubstantiation  and  of  a  gross  ubiquity  of  the 
FLESH   OF  Christ.     They  are   greatly  mistaken  who   suppose 

*Theolog.  Positiv.     Lipsiae,  1750,  p.  6G1. 

f  Dissertatio  Historica-theologica  de  Impaiiat.  et  Consubstantiat. 
X  Conformitd    de    la    foy    avec    raiaon,  ^  xviii.     Disaertatio    de    Conformitate. 
Tubingen,  1771. 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC   WRITERS.  771 

the  doctrine  of  impanation  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Luther  and 
of  our  Church.  The  doctrine  of  impanation,  if  we  distin- 
guish it  from  that  of  assumption,  can  mean  nothing  else  than 
a  local  inclusion  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  bread.  To  admit 
such   a   doctrine    would   be   to   admit   the   grossest 

•^  IJiiddeiis,  1728. 

absurdities  ;  they,  therefore,  who  impute  it  to  our 
Church,  prove  onli/  their  ignorance  of  our  doctrine.  In  either 
serise,  in  which  the  word  Consubstantiation  can  be  taken,  the 
doctrine  cannot,  in  any  respect^  be  attributed  to  our  Church  ; 
it  was  always  far  from  the  mind  of  our  Church.  The  sacra- 
mental union  is  one  which  reason  cannot  comprehend,  and  the 
taking,  eating,  and  drinking  are  done  in  sublime  mystery."* 
CoTTA  (f  1779)  f  makes  the  following  remarks  upon  the 
different  theories  of  sacramental  union  :  "  By  impanation  is 
meant  a  local  inclusion  of  the  body  and  blood  in 

•^  Gotta,  1779. 

the  bread  and  wine.  Gerhard  has  rightly  noted 
that  the  theologians  of  our  Church  utterly  abhor  this  error. 
The  particles  in,  with,  under  are  not  used  to  express  a  local 
inclusion.  As  our  theologians  reject  impanation,  so  also  they 
reject  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation.  This  word  is  taken 
in  two  senses.  It  denotes  sometimes  a  local  conjunction  of  two 
bodies ;  sometimes  a  commingling  or  coalescence  into  one  substance 
or  mass.  But  in  neither  sense  can  that  monstrous  dogma  of  Con- 
substantiation be  attributed  to  our  Church  ;  for  Lutherans 
believe  neither  in  a  local  conjunction  nor  commixture  of  bread 
and  Christ's  body,  nor  of  wine  and  Christ's  blood." 

AVe  could  multiply  testimony  on  this  point  almost  without 
end.  ITo  great  dogmatician  of  our  Church,  who  has  treated 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  at  all,  has  failed  to  protest  in  some  form 
against  the  charge  we  are  considering. 

The  less  candid  or  less  informed  among  the  Roman  Catholic 
writers  have   made  the  same  groundless  charge   against  our 
Church,  while  other  writer    in  the  same  Church     j^^^^^^^  ^atho- 
have  acknowledged  the  falsity  of  it.     One  example  i^c  writers. 
of  the  former  will  suffice. 

*  Miscellanea,  ii.  86,  seq.  Catechet.  Theologia,  ii.  656.  Instit.  Theol.  Dogm. 
V.  i.  XV. 

f  In  Gerhard's  Loci,  x.  165. 


772  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

Perroxe*  says  of  the  Lutherans:  "Some  of  them  have 
hrought  in  the  doctrine  of  hypostatic  union  of  the  incarnate 
Word  with  the  bread,  which  union  they  call  ini- 
panation  ;  others  amrm  a  consiibstantiation^  as  they 
call  it,  or  a  commixture  or  concomitance."  Perrone  has  not 
only  been  following  Romish  guides,  but  he  has  selected  the 
worst  among  them. 

Began  (f  1624)  f  says  :  "  Luther  serws  to  assert  impanation  ; " 
but  even  this,  he  goes  on  to  show,  is  not  true  of  the  Lutheran 
B.'c:in  1624  Church.  Bellarmin  (f  1621)  X :  "  Luther  insinu- 
B,na.n.in,]62i.  ^tcs  thc  iuipauatiou  of  Rupert  and  John  of  Paris, 
but  does  not  state  it  explicitly."  He  then  goes  on  to  show 
that  Martin  Chemnitz  and  the  other  Lutherans  did  not  hold 
this  view. 

MoEHLER  §  :  "  Luther  had  already  rejected  the  doctrine  of 

transubstantiation  ;  but  he  still  continued,  with  his  accustomed 

coarseness  and  violence,  yet  with  srreat  acuteness 

Moehler.  1838.  *'  i     p         i  •  ry       • 

and  most  brilliant  success,  to  detend  against  Zwin- 
glius  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  For  when- 
ever the  doctrinal  truth  is  in  any  degree  on  his  side,  he  is 
always  an  incomparable  disputant,  and  what  he  puts  forth  on 
this  subject  in  his  controversial  writings  is  still  deserving  of 
attention." 

Cardinal  Wiseman  ||  refers  to  "  consubstantiation  or  conipana- 

tion  in  the  chrysalis  proposition  "  (the  Tenth  Article  of  the 

Augsburg  Confession),  "in  which  we  must  try  to  suppose  it 

originally  contained."     The   cardinal    means  that 

isiman,  o.  ^^^  Coufcssiou  "  docs  uot  SO  iTiuch  iuipugu  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation  as  leave  it  aside;"  but  that  if  it 
does  not  leave  transubstantiation  an  open  question,  it  teaches 
consubstantiation ;  and  that,  out  of  deference  to  its  friends,  he  is 
>villing,  in  his  good  nature,  to  in/  to  think  the  doctrine  is  there. 
But  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  the  cardinal's  whole  argument 
in  "The  Real  Presence  j^rovcd from  Snripturc,'^  there  is  no  posi- 

*  Pi-jelect.  Theologic.  L.  III.        f  Manual  Controvers.  L.  II. 
+  Lib.  in.  fie  Kucli.  Cli.  XL         ^  Symbolism.  Transl.  by  Robortson.   §  xxxv. 
II  The   Roal  Presence  of  the  Botly  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
Blessed  Eucharist  proved  from  Scripture.     Lend.  1836.     Lects.  IL  and  VIII. 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  DIVINES.  773 

tion  taken  which  involves  tlie  doctrine  of  transahstantiatlon. 
The  ablest  parts  of  the  book  are  a  far  better  defence  of  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  than  of  the  Roman  Catholic.  Cardinal 
Wiseman  was  too  able  a  controversialist  to  attempt  to  identifi/ 
in  the  argmncnt  (whatever  he  might  assume  in  the  dejinition)  the 
doctrine  of  transuhstantlation  with  the  doctrine  of  a  real  j)res- 
ence.  He  argues  exclusively  from  Scripture  for  the  latter,  and 
merely  takes  for  granted  the  former.  This  he  admits  in  his 
closing  lecture:  "In  concluding  these  lectures  on  the  Scrip- 
tural proofs  of  the  real  presence,  I  will  simply  say.  that 
throughout  them  I  have  spoken  of  the  doctrine"  (the  real 
presence)  "  as  synonymous  with  transuhstantlation.  For  as  by 
the  real  presence  I  have  understood  a  corporeal  presence,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  substance^  it  is  evident  that  the  one  is,  in 
truth,  equivalent  to  the  other.  On  this  account  I  have  con- 
tended for  the  literal  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  words,  leaving 
IT  AS  A  MATTER  OF  INFERENCE  that  the  Eucharist,  after  conse- 
cration, is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 

The  most  judicious  Romish  controversialists,  like  the  cardi- 
nal, separate  the  two  questions.  Bouvier  *  and  Perrone,t  for 
example,  prove,  in  the  first  article,  "  the  real  pres- 

i-        ^  ^  '  '  ^  Bouvier,  1854. 

ence  ; "  in  the  second,  they  discuss  the  "  mode  of  the 
real  presence  —  transubstantiation."  The  fact  is  that  the  two 
lines  of  argument  are  directly  contradictory.  The  processes 
of  exegesis  which  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence 
overthrow  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  The  Romanist 
is  on  the  Lutheran  ground  when  he  proves  the  first ;  he  is  on 
the  Calvinistic  ground  when  he  attempts  to  prove  the  second. 
Many  of  the  ablest  divines  of  the  Calvinistic  Churches  have 
acknowledged  the  libellous  character  of  the  charge  Admissions  of 
that  the  Lutheran  Church  holds  the  doctrine  of  caivinistic  di- 
CoNSUBSTANTiATioN.  While  BucER  (f  1551)  was 
still  with  the  Zwinglians,  he  wrote  (1530)  to  Luther :  "  You  do 
not  maintain  that  Christ  is  in  the  bread  locally ;  and  you  ac- 
knowledge that  though  Christ  exists  in  one  place  of  heaven  in 
the  mode  of  a  body,  yet  he  can  be  truly  present  in  the  Supper, 

*Institut.  Theolog.  Sept.  Edit.  Parisiis,  1850.  III.  3,  31. 
•j- Praelectiones  Theologicae.     Paris,  1852.     II.  155,  208. 


774  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

through  the  words  and  symbols. "  In  his  Retractation  he 
says:  "To  Lather,  and  those  who  stood  with  him,  was 
attributed  a  grosser  doctrine  concerning  the  presence  and 
reception  of  the  Lord  in  the  Supper  than  that  which  I 
afterwards  found,  and  now  testify,  they  ever  held.  I  disap- 
proved of  certain  forms  of  speech,  as,  that  the  sacraments  con- 
firmed faith  and  strengthened  the  conscience,  that  Christ 
was  received  in  the  sacrament,  and  that  this  reception  was 
corporeal :  which  forms  I  now  acknowledge  I  can  use  piously 
3^^^^^  and  profitably."-^  WoLFGANa  MuscuLUS  (f  1563)  f: 
Muscuius.  "  I  do  not  think  that  any  one  ever  said  that  the 
bread  is  naturally  or  personally  the  body  of  our 
Lord ;  and  Luther  himself,  of  pious  memory,  expressly  denied 
both  modes."  AVhitaker  (  +1595)  %  '•  "  Luther  taught  no  per- 
sonal union  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  with  the  bread." 

SaLiMASIUS  (t  1653) :  §  ''  Consubstantiation,  or  fusion  of  na- 
tures, is  the  commixtion  of  two  substances  as  it  were  into  one  ; 
but  it  is  not  this  which  the  followers  of  Luther  believe ;  for 
they  maintain  the  co-existence  of  two  substances  distinct  in 
two  subjects.  It  is  the  co-existence,  rather,  of  the  two  sub- 
stances than    their   consubstantiation."      l^othinor 

Balni;i8Ui8.  <-' 

stapfer.  would  bc  caslcr  than  to  multiply  such  citations. 
Some  have  been  given  in  other  parts  of  this  work,  and  with 
one  more  we  will  close  our  illastrations  of  this  point.  We 
shall  quote  from  Staffer,  who,  probably  beyond  any  other  of 
the  writers  of  Polemics,  is  a  favorite  among  Calvinists.  He 
first  states  II  the  points  in  which  Calvinists  and  Lutherans 
agree  on  the  Lord's  Supper:  "  They  agree, 

"  a.  That  the  bread  is  not  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ : 
after  the  consecration  the  outward  signs  remain  bread  and  wine. 

♦Given  in  Verpoorten:  Comment.  Ilistor.  de  Martino  Bucero.  Coburg,  1709. 
\  XX.  xxiii. 

f  Loci  Comm.  Theolog.  Bern,  1500,  1583.  Folio,  771.  Quoted  in  Baier:  De 
Impanat.  13.  Musculus  was  originally  of  the  Strasburg  school.  His  Loci  are 
of  the  Helvetic  type, 

X  Prael.  de  Sacr.  Franc.  1C24,  561.     Quoted  in  Baier,  13. 

I  Simpl.  Verin.  sive  Claudii  Salmasii  De  Transubstant.  Ed.  Sec.  Lugdun.  Bat. 
Ui60,  p.  509. 

II  Inatitut.  Theolog.   Tolemic.  Universse.   Tigur,  1748,  12mo,  V.  227. 


ADMISSIONS   OF  CALVINISTIC  DIVINES.        775 

"  h.  The  bread  is  not  to  be  adored. 

"  c.  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  an  invention  which  casts 
contempt  on  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross. 

"  d.  The  carrying  about  of  the  host  in  processions  is  absurd 
and  idolatrous. 

"  e.  The  mutilation  of  the  Supper,  b}^  giving  only  the  bread, 
is  impious,  and  contrary  to  the  original  institution. 

''f.  The  use  and  virtue  of  the  Sacrament  is  not  dependent 
on  the  intention  of  the  consecrator. 

"^.  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  verily  and 
really  in  the  Eucharist,  not  to  our  soul  only,  but  also  to  our 
body.     They  are  present  by  power  and  efficacy. 

"  h.  Ou\y  believers^  by  means  of  the  right  use  of  this  Sacrament, 
are  made  partakers  of  the  fruits  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ ;  unbelievers  receive  no  benefit. 

''  They  differ  in  these  respects  : 

''  a.  The  brethren  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  teach  :  That 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  with  the  signs  in  the 
Supper  substantially  and  corporeally. 

'-'  But  here  it  is  to  be  observed  that  these  brethren  do  not 
mean  that  there  is  any  consubstantiation  or  iiapanation.  On 
the  contrary,  Pfaff,  the  venerable  Chancellor  of  Tubingen, 
protests,  in  their  name,  against  such  an  idea.  He  says :  * 
'  All  ours  agree  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  in  the  Eucharist 
by  act  of  that  finite  nature  of  its  own,  according  to  which  it 
is  now  only  in  a  certain  "  pou"  (somewhere)  of  the  heavens; 
and  this  remains  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  in  the  world, 
nor  in  the  Eucharist,  by  diffusion  or  extension,  by  expansion 
or  location,  by  circumscription  or  natural  mode.  Yet  is  the 
body  of  Christ  really  present  in  the  Holy  Supper.  But  the 
inquisitive  may  ask.  How?  I  answer,  our  theologians,  who 
have  rightly  weighed  the  matter,  say  that  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  present  in  the  Holy  Supper  according  to  the 
omnipresence  imparted  to  the  flesh  of  Christ  by  virtue  of  the 
personal  union,  and  are  sacramentally  united  with  the  Eu- 
charistic  symbols,  the  bread  and  wine ;  that  is,  are  so  united, 
that  of  the  divine  institution,  these  symbols  are  not  symbols 

*  Instit.  Theol.  Dogm.  et  Moral.  III.  iii.  740,  743. 


776  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

and  figures  of  an  absent  thing,  but  of  a  thing  most  present,  to 
wit,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  are  not  figurative, 
but  most  real  and  substatitial.  Wherefore  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  present,  but  not  by  a  presence  of  their  own  —  a 
natural  and  cohesive,  circumscriptive  and  local,  difiusive  and 
extensive  presence,  according  to  which  other  bodies  are  said 
to  be  present  —  but  by  a  divine  presence,  a  presence  through 
the  conjunction  of  the  Logos  with  the  flesh  of  Christ.  We, 
rejecting  all  other  modes  of  a  real  Eucharistic  presence,  hold, 
in  accordance  with  our  Symbolical  books,  that  union  alone 
according  to  which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  act  of 
the  divine  person,  in  which  they  subsist,  are  present  with  the 
Eucharistic  symbols.  We  repeat,  therefore,  all  those  of  the 
Reformed  do  wrongly  who  attribute  to  us  the  doctrine  of  con- 
substantiation,  against  whom  we  solemnly  protest.' 

*'  b.  The  adherents  of  the  Auo:sbur(>;  Confession  hold  that  the 
true  and  substantial  body  and  blood  of  Christ  .  .  are  received 
by  unbelievers  as  well  as  by  believers,  orally.  Pfafi'  thus  ex- 
presses it :  '  Though  the  participation  be  oral,  yet  the  mode  is 
spiritual ;  that  is,  is  not  natural,  not  corporeal,  not  carnal."' 

Not  only  however  have  candid  men  of  other  Churches  repur 
diated  the  false  charge  made  against  our  Church,  but  there 
have  not  been  wanting  those,  not  of  our  Communion,  who  have 
given  the  most  effectual  denial  of  these  charges  by  approach- 
ing very  closely  to  the  doctrine  which  has  been  maligned,  or  by 
accepting  it  unreservedly.* 

The  Lutheran  Church  has  been  charged  vf'ith  self-contradiction 

in  her  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  Eucharist   in  this 

respect,  that,  contending  that  the  words  "  This  is 

Th"tti?e^irt'gcris  niy  body"  are  not  figurative,  she  yet  considers  that 

is  self -con  tradic-  thcrc  is  a  figure  in  the  second  part  of  the  narrative 

of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  set  forth  by  St.  Luke,  xxii. 

*See,  for  example,  the  remarks  of  Theremin,  the  Fenolon  of  the  Reformed 
Church  (Adalbert's  Confession),  and  of  Alexander  Knox,  who  was  so  profound 
and  vigorous  as  a  writer,  and  so  rich  in  deep  Christian  experience:  "Treatise 
on  the  Use  and  Import  of  the  Eucharistic  Symbols,"  in  "Remains."  3d  cditioD, 
London,  1844. 


OBJECTION,  777 

20 :  that  when  our  Lord  says :  ''  This  cup  (is)  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  my  blood,"  the  word  "  cup  "  is  used  figuratively  for 
"  contents  of  the  cup ; "  and  that  we  do  not  hold  that  the  cup 
is  literally  the  New  Testament.  If  we  allow  a  figure  in  the 
second  part,  docs  it  not  follow  that  there  may  be  a  figure  in 
the  first  ?  To  this  we  answer.  First.  Either  the  modes  of  ex- 
pression in  the  two  parts  are  grammatically  and  rhetorically 
parallel,  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are  not  parallel,  there  not 
only  can  be  no  inconsistency  in  different  modes  of  interpreting, 
but  they  mast  be  interpreted  differently.  If  they  are  parallel, 
then  both  doctrines  are  bound  to  authenticate  themselves  by 
perfect  consisteuQy  in  the  mode  of  interpreting.  Both  agree 
that  the  word  "  cup  "  involves  "  contents  of  the  cup."  Now 
treat  them  as  parallel,  and  on  the  Calvinistic  view  results  logi- 
cally ,  "  The  contents  of  this  bread  is  my  body,  the  contents  of 
this  cup  is  my  blood,  or,  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood  "  — 
that  is,  they  reach  the  Lutheran  view.  If  Lutherans  are  in- 
consistent here,  it  is  certainly  not  that  they  fear  to  lose  by  con- 
sistency. 

We  at  least  accept  the  result  of  our  exegesis  of  the  word 
"  cup,"  (which  our  opponents  admit  is  here  right,)  whether  it 
be  consistent  with  our  former  exegesis  or  not.  If  any  man 
believes  that  the  "  contents  of  the  cup  "  is  the  blood  of  Christ, 
he  can  hardly  refrain  from  believing  that  the  bread  is  the  Com- 
munion of  His  body.  But  our  opponents  will  no  more  accept 
the  necessary  consequence  of  our  exegesis  where  it  coincides 
with  their  own,  than  where  it  differs ;  for  while  on  their  own 
exegesis,  Avith  which  they  claim  that  on  this  point  ours  is  iden- 
tical, the  "  cup  "  means  "  contents  of  the  cup  ;  "  to  avoid  the 
necessary  inference,  or  rather  the  direct  statement,  that  the 
"contents  of  the  cup  "is  Christ's  blood,  they  go  on  to  say, 
"  the  contents  of  the  cup  "  we  know  to  be  wine  ;  the  cup  there- 
fore really  means,  not  in  general  the  "  contents  of  the  cup," 
but  specifically  "wine."  The  word  "cup,"  as  such,  never 
means  "wine."  When  Jesus  says  of  the  cup,  "This  cup 
is  tlie  New  Testament  in  my  blood,"  the  meaning  they 
give  it  is,  after  all,  not  as  Lutherans  believe,  that  the  '  con- 
tents of  the  cup"   is   the  New  Testament  in  Christ's  blood, 


778  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION'. 

but  that  ''  this  wine  is  like  the  Xew  Testament  in  Christ  s 
blood,  or  the  pouring  out  of  this  wine  like  the  pouring  out  of 
the  Xew  Testament  —  or  of  the  blood  which  is  its  constituting 
cause."  The  interpretation,  therefore,  of  the  word  "  cup." 
which  they  grant  to  be  a  correct  one,  if  legitimately  accepted, 
overthrows  their  doctrine. 

But  this  still  leaves  untouched  the  point  of  the  alleged  incon- 
sistency between  the  principles  on  which  our  Church  interprets 
the  "  first  "  and  "  second  ''  parts  of  the  formula  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  But  our  Church  does  not  believe,  as  the  alleged  incon- 
sistency would  involve,  that  there  is  a  rhetorical  figure  in  the 
words,  "  This  is  my  blood,''  or,  "  This  cup  is  the  ^N'ew  Testament 
in  my  blood."  If,  in  a  case  fairly  parallel,  we  acknowledge  in 
the  second  part  of  the  formula  what  we  denied  in  the  first, 
then,  and  then  only,  could  we  be  charged  with  inconsistency. 
But  in  this  case  there  is  no  parallel  whatever,  nor  even  the 
semblance  of  inconsistency.  We  do  not  interpret  any  word  of 
the  ''  second  "  part  of  the  formula  metaphorically,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  inconsistent  with  our  denial  of  a  metaphor  in 
the  "  first."  We  do  not  interpret  the  w^ord  "  cup  "  to  mean 
''  sign,"  ''  symbol,"  or  "  figure  "  of  cup  ;  but  because  a  literal 
cup  actually  contains  and  conveys  its  literal  contents,  so  that 
you  cannot  receive  the  contents  without  receiving  the  cup,  nor 
the  cup,  without  receiving  the  contents  ;  they  are  so  identified, 
that,  without  dreaming  of  a  departure  from  the  prose  of  every- 
day life,  all  the  cultivated  languages  of  men  give  the  name 
"  cup  "  both  to  the  thing  containing  arid  the  thing  contained. 
There  is,  however,  this  difierence  —  that  the  thing  designed  to 
contain  bears  the  name  "  cup  "  even  when  empty,  but  the 
thing  contained  bears  the  name  "  cup  "  only  in  its  relations 
as  contained.  A  wine-cup  may  hold  no  wine ;  a  cup  of  wine 
involves  both  wine  as  contained,  and  a  cup  as  containing.  The 
word  "  cup  "  may  mean,  without  metaphor  :  First.  The  vessel 
meant  to  contain  liquids,  whether  they  be  in  it  or  not.  Second. 
The  liquid  which  is  contained  in  such  a  vessel,  or  is  imparted 
by  it.  Third.  The  vessel  and  liquid  together.  Before  the  sacra- 
mental cup  was  filled,  the  word  "  cup  "  would  be  applied  to  it 
in  the  Jirst  sense.     In  the  words  :  "  He  took  the  cup,"  Luke 


THE  CUP.  779 

xxii.  17,  the  word  "  cup  "  is  used  in  the  third  of  these  senses  — 
He  took  the  cup  containing,  and  through  it  the  contents.  In 
the  words  :  "  Divide  it  among  yourselves,"  the  cup  is  conceived 
of  in  the  second  sense  —  divide  the  contained  cup,  hy  passing 
from  one  to  the  other  the  containing  cup,  with  its  contents.  In 
the  words  of  the  institution  :  "  This  cup  is  the  I^ew  Testa- 
ment," the  contained  cup,  in  the  second  sense,  is  understood  — 
the  contained  as  mediated  through  the  containing  —  that  which 
this  cup  contains  is  the  Kew  Testament  in  my  blood.  In  such 
a  use  of  the  word  ''  cup  "  there  is  no  metaphor,  no  rhetorical 
figure  whatever.  It  is  a  grammatical  form  of  speech  ;  and  if 
it  is  called  a  "  figure,"  the  word  "  figure  "  is  used  in  a  sense 
different  from  that  which  it  has  when  it  is  denied  that  there 
is  a  "  figure  "  in  the  first  words  of  the  Supper.  AVe  deny  that 
there  is  a  rhetorical  figure  in  any  part  of  the  words  of  the 
Institution. 

While  in  the  history  of  the  second  part  of  the  Supper,  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  upon  the  one  side,  and  Luke  and  St.  Paul 
upon  the  other,  are  perfectly  coincident  in  meaning,  that  is  a 
radically  false  exegesis  which  attempts  to  force  the  language 
of  either  so  as  to  produce  a  specific  parallelism  of  phraseology. 
According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  Jesus  took  the  cup,  and, 
having  given  thanks,  gave  it  to  His  disciples,  saying, ''  Drink  ye 
all  of  it ;  for  this  is  that  blood  of  mine,  the  (blood)  of  the  IS'ew 
Covenant,  the  (blood)  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
These  words  grammatically  mean  :  "  Literally  drink,  all  of  you, 
of  it.  For  it,  this  which  I  tell  you  all  to  drink,  is  that  blood 
of  wine,  the  blood  of  the  ITew  Covenant ;  the  blood  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  So  far  as  Matthew  and  Mark 
are  concerned,  the  exegetical  parallel  in  the  Lutheran  interpre- 
tation of  both  parts  is  perfect.  Their  meaning  is  clear  and 
unmistakable.  Luke  and  Paul  state  the  same  thought  in  its 
Hebraizing  form,  which  is  less  conformed  than  the  Greek  to 
our  English  idiom.  ''  In  the  same  manner  also,  (taking,  giv- 
ing thanks,  blessing,)  He  gave  them  the  cup  after  they  had 
supped,  saying:  This  the  cup  (is)  the  N"ew  Covenant  in  my 
blood,  which  (cup)  is  poured  out  for  you." 

The  grammatical  differences  between  the  two  accounts  are 


780  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

several.  First,  in  Matthew  and  Mark  the  subject  is  the  demon- 
strative pronoun  touto,  this,  which  I  command  you  to  drink,* 
in  Luke  and  Paul,  the  subject  is  :  "  This  the  cup  "  "  poured  out 
for  YOU  :  "  meaning  of  both,  differently  expressed,  this  which 
I  command  you  to  drink  (Matt.,  Mark),  to  wit,  the  cup  "poured 
out  for  you,"  (Luke,)  the  poured  out,  the  shed  contents  of 
the  cup,  are  the  blood  of  Christ,  (Luke,  Paul).  Second.  The 
copula  is  the  same:  Esti,  is.  Expressed  in  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Paul.  Understood  in  Luke.  But  it  can  only  be  left  un- 
expressed on  the  theory  that  the  proper  force  of  the  substan- 
tive copula  is  unchangeable.  It  cannot  mean.  This  which  I  tell 
you  to  drink  is  a  symbol  of  my  blood,  or.  This  the  cup  is  the 
symbol  of  the  New  Covenant.  Third.  The  predicate  is  different 
grammatically,  but  identical  really :  In  Matthew  and  Mark 
the  predicate  is,  My  blood  ;  the  blood  of  the  I^ew  Covenant ; 
the  blood  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
In  Luke  and  Paul,  the  predicate  is  :  The  New  Covenant  in  my 
blood.  The  blood  constitutes  the  Covenant,  the  Covenant  is 
constituted  in  the  blood.  In  Matthew  and  ALark,  our  Lord 
says :  That  which  His  disciples  drink  in  the  Eucharist  is  the 
shed  blood  of  the  New  Covenant.  In  Luke  and  Paul  lie  says, 
That  the  cup  poured  out  for  them,  which  they  drink,  is  the 
New  Covenant  (constituted)  m  His  blood.  Now,  cup  and  that 
which  they  drink  are  two  terms  for  one  and  the  same  thing ; 
and  blood  of  the  New  Covenant  and  New  Covenant  of  the 
blood  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  as  an  indissoluble  unity.  They 
are  a  cause  and  effect  continuously  conjoined.  The  blood  is 
not  something  which  originates  the  Covenant,  and  gives  it  a 
separate  being  no  longer  dependent  on  its  cause  ;  but  the  blood 
is  forever  the  operative  cause  of  the  Covenant  in  its  application, 
of  which  it  was  primarily  the  cause  in  its  consummation.  That 
which  we  drink  in  the  Supper  is  the  shed  blood  of  Christ  — 
and  that  shed  blood  is  the  New  Covenant,  because  the  Covenant 
is  in  the  blood,  and  with  the  blood.     This  is  the  identity  of 

*So  even  Meyer:  "Dieses  was  ihr  tiinken  sollet."  So  far  and  so  far  only 
the  Grammar  carries  bim  ;  but  he  presumes  to  add,  not  from  any  knowledge 
gained  from  the  text,  but  from  Lightfoot,  that  what  they  were  to  drink  was  "the 
(red)  wine  in  this  cup." 


THE  CUP.  781 

inseparable  conjunction,  ^ow  attempt,  the  application  of  the 
symbolical,  metaphorical  theory  in  this  case.  Can  it  be  pretended 
that  the  symbolical  or  metaphorical  blood  of  Christ,  not  His 
real  blood,  was  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins?*  or  that  the 
symbol  of  the  Xew  Covenant,  not  the  ^ew  Covenant  itself,  is 
established  in  the  blood  of  Christ?  As  to  the  theory  that 
"  cup  "  does  not  mean  generically  "contents,"  but  specifically 
"  wine,"  it  is  at  once  arrayed  against  the  laws  of  language  ;  and, 
here,  is  specially  impossible,  because  the  cup -content  is  said 
to  be  shed  or  poured  for  us  ("  for  the  remission  of  sins  ").  That 
cannot  be  said  of  the  wine.  But  as  Matthew^  and  Mark  ex- 
pressly say  it  is  "the  blood  which  is  shed,"  and  Luke  and 
Paul  say  it  is  "  the  cup  "  which  is  shed,  it  is  clear  that  cup  is 
the  content  cup,  and  that  the  content-cup  shed  for  us  is  Christ's 
blood,  not  a  symbol  of  it. 

The  cup  is  not  said  to  be  the  ^ew  Testament  simply,  but  the 
!N"ew  Testament  in  Chrisfs  blood.  Xow  if  the  contents  be  mere 
wine,  this  absurdity  arises  with  the  metaphorical  interpretation  : 
"Wine  is  the  symbol  of  the  JnTcw  Testament  in  Christ's  blood  — 
but  wine  is  also  the  symbol  of  the  blood,  on  the  same  theory. 
In  one  and  the  same  institution,  therefore,  it  is  a  symbol,  both 
of  the  thing  constituting,  to  wit,  the  blood,  and  of  the  thing 
constituted,  to  wit,  the  N'ew  Testament.  But  if  it  be  said,  to 
avoid  this  rock,  that  it  is  a  symbol  of  the  thing  constituted, 
because  it  is  a  symbol  of  the  thing  constituting,  that  implies 
that  there  is  a  grammatical  metonymy  of  the  effect  for  the 
cause  it  involves  and  includes  ;  and  this  throws  out  the  rhe- 
torical figure,  and  admits  just  what  the  Lutheran  Church 
chxims  here. 

How  completely  different  the  use  of  "  cup  "  in  grammatical 
metonymy  is  from  its  use  in  metaphor,  is  very  clear  when  we 
take  a  case  in  which  the  word  "  cup  "  is  actually  used  in  meta- 
phor: "The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me  shall  I  not 

*Tlns  is  not  pretended  even  by  the  advocates  of  the  symbolical  theory.  Meyer 
interprets  :  "  »  This  is  my  blood  of  the  Covenant ; '  my  blood  serving  for  the 
closing  of  the  Covenant  with  God."  He  falls  back  upon  esti,  as  what  he  calla 
"  the  Copula  of  the  Symbolic  relation."  That  such  a  character  in  the  copula  is 
a  pure  figment,  we  have  tried  to  show  in  a  previous  dissertation. 


782  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

drink  it?"  Here  there  18  no  literal  cup,  no  literal  contents; 
but  anguish  is  figured  under  the  word.  N'ot  so  is  it  when  our 
Lord  says :  "  He  that  giveth  a  cup  of  cold  water  —  "  The 
containino;  cup  is  not  of  water,  hut  of  wood  or  metal :  it  is  the 
cup  contained,  our  Lord  means  ;  hut  He  uses  no  figure,  but 
plain  every-day  prose. 

While  metaphor  proper  is  never  used  in  a  testament  to 
directly  designate  the  thing  conveyed,  the  grammatical  metony- 
my is  constantly  so  used.  A  man  may  direct  in  a  will  that 
a  cup  of  wine  shall  be  given  to  every  tenant  on  the  estate, — 
so  many  barrels  of  ale,  so  many  sacks  of  wheat,  be  distributed 
at  a  particular  time. 

The  cup  is  called  the  ^ew  Testament,  not  because  of  the  iden- 
tity of  sign  and  thing  signified,  but  because  of  the  identity  of 
cause  and  efi:ect  —  the  cup  contained  is  Christ's  blood,  and  that 
blood  is  literally  the  ITew  Testament  causally  considered. 

It  has  been  objected  that,  as  our  Saviour  was  visibly  present, 
the  disciples  could  not  have  understood  that  what  they  took 
from  His  hands  and  ate  was  truly  the  Communion  — the  com- 

III  oi.ectioM  municating  medium  of  His  body.  This  objection 
— Tiie  snpp..st..i  rcvcals  the  essentially  low  and  inadequate  views  of 
'Zt^\l  the  objector,  both  as  to  the  person  of  Christ  and 
»''•-«•  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.     First.  It  assumes  as 

a  fact  what  cannot  be  proven,  as  to  the  understanding  of  the 
disciples.  Second.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  limitation  of 
the  faith  of  the  disciples  at  that  time,  when  they  were  not  yet 
under  the  full  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  iSTew  Testa- 
ment measure,  and  there  was  necessarily  much  they  did  not 
understand  at  all,  and  much  that  they  understood  very  imper- 
fectly, we  have  strong  and  direct  evidence,  as  we  have  already 
shown,  of  their  mature  and  final  understanding  of  our  Lord's 
words,  to  wit,  that  these  words  do  involve  a  true,  supernatural, 
objective  presence  of  His  body  and  blood.  Third.  All  the  ear- 
liest Fathers  who  were  the  disciples  of  the  apostles,  or  of  their 
immediate  successors,  show  that  it  was  their  faith  that  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  there  is  a  supernatural,  objective  communica- 
tion of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  in  connection  with 
the  other  facts  make  it  certain  that  this  was  the  understanding 


OB/ECTION,  FROM  THE  PRESENCE   OF  CHRIST.     783 

and  the  faith  of  the  apostles  themselves.  The  more  difficult  to 
reason  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence  is  shown  to  he,  the 
stronger  is  the  presumption  that  the  doctrine  was  reached 
neither  hy  the  exercise  of  reason  nor  by  the  perversion  of  it, 
but  by  the  witness  of  the  N"ew  Testament  writings  and  the 
personal  teachings  of  the  apostles. 

It  is  objected  that  it  is  inconceivable  that  Christ,  then  pres- 
ent, visibly  and  locally,  could  have  given  His  body  sacrament- 
ally  in  a  true,  objective  sense.  There  is  a  strong 
appeal  made  to  the  rationalism  of  the  natural  mind.  ,y„„/  the'^vMslwe 
Christ  in  Ilis  human  form  is  brought  before  the  P'csence  of 
mental  vision,  sitting  at  the  table,  holding  the 
bread  in  His  hand  ;  and  men  are  asked,  "  Can  you  believe  that 
the  body  which  contirmed  to  sit  visibly  and  palpably  before 
them,  was  communicated  in  any  real  manner  by  the  bread  ?  " 
It  is  evident  at  first  sight  that  the  objection  assumes  a  falsity, 
to  wit,  that  the  body  of  Christ,  though  personally  united  with 
Deity,  has  no  mode  of  true  presence  but  the  visible  and  palpa- 
ble. The  objection,  to  mean  anything,  means,  "  Can  you 
believe  that  what  continued  in  a  visible  and  palpable  mode  of 
presence  before  their  eyes,  was  communicated  in  a  visible  and 
palpable  mode  of  presence  with  the  bread  ?  "  To  this  the 
answer  is :  "  We  neither  assert  nor  believe  it  1 "  If,  to  make  the 
argument  hold,  the  objector  insists,  "That,  if  the  body  were 
not  communicated  in  that  visible  and  palpable  mode,  it  could 
be  communicated  in  no  true  mode,"  he  abandons  one  objection 
to  fly  to  another ;  and  what  he  now  has  to  do  is  to  prove  that 
the  palpable  and  visible  mode  of  presence  is  the  only  one  possi- 
ble to  the  body  of  our  Lord  which  is  in  personal  union  with 
Deity.  It  is  interesting  here  to  see  the  lack  of  consistency 
between  two  sorts  of  representations  made  by  the  objectors 
to  the  sacramental  presence  of  Christ.  The  first  is.  We  cannot 
believe  that  He  was  sacramentally  present  then  at  the  first 
Supper  because  He  was  bodily  so  near.  The  second  is,  He  can- 
not be  sacramentally  present  now,  because  His  body  is  so  far  oft*. 
But  alike  to  the  argument  from  mere  natural  proximity,  or 
from  mere  natural  remoteness,  the  answer  is:  The  whole 
human  nature  of  our  Lord  belongs  on  two  sides,  in  two  sets  of 


784  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

relations,  to  two  diverse  spheres.  That  His  body  was  before 
their  eyes  in  the  manner  of  the  one  sphere,  is  no  reason  why 
it  should  not  be  imparted  to  them,  after  the  supernatural  and 
heavenly  manner  of  the  other,  in  the  sacramental  mystery.  If 
the  local  reality  is  not  contradictory  to  spiritual  reality,  neither 
is  it  to  the  supernatural.  If  they  could  receive  a  body  spirit- 
ually, they  could  receive  it  supernaturally.  If  they  could  have 
it  imparted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  could  have  it  imparted 
by  the  Son.  If  the  disciples  could  trust  their  eyes  for  the 
natural  reality,  and  walk  by  sight  in  regard  to  it,  they  could 
trust  Christ's  infollible  word  for  the  supernatural  reality, 
walking  then,  as  we  must  ever  walk  in  the  high  and  holy 
sphere  of  the  Divine,  by  faith,  not  by  sight.  The  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  in  no  decrree  contradicts  the  testi- 
mony  of  the  senses.  Whatever  the  senses  testify  is  in  the 
Eucharist,  it  acknowledges  to  be  there.  AYe  have  the  vision,  feel- 
ing, and  taste  of  bread  and  wine,  and  we  believe  there  is  true 
bread  and  true  wine  there.  But  body  and  blood,  supernatu- 
rally present,  are  not  the  objects  of  the  senses.  The  sight, 
touch,  taste,  are  v/holly  incapable  of  testimony  to  such  a  pres- 
ence, and  are  equally  incapable  of  testifying  against  them. 
There  are  things  of  nature,  naturally  present,  of  which  the  senses 
are  not  conscious.  There  are  probably  things  in  nature  which 
the  senses  may  be  entirely  incapable  of  perceiving.  How  much 
more  then  may  the  supernatural  be  supernaturally  present 
without  afi'ordins:  our  senses  any  clue.  The  senses  in  no  case 
grasp  substance;  they  are  always  and  exclusively  concerned 
with  phenomena.  What  if  the  supernatural  here  be  present 
as  substance  without  plienomena  ?  We  deny  that  there  is  a 
phenomenal  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  We  hold 
that  there  is  a  substantial  presence  of  them.  How  little  we 
may  build  upon  the  assumptions  of  human  vision,  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  Docetists  believed  that  the  whole  appearing 
of  Christ  was  but  phenomenal ;  that  His  divinity  clothed  itself, 
not  with  a  true  human  body,  but  with  a  spectral  and  illusive 
form,  which  men  took  to  be  a  real  body  ;  it  was  the  substance 
of  divinity  in  the  accidents  of  humanity.  The  Romish  view 
of  the  Sn[.pcr  is  the  Docetisni  of   the  earthly  elements ;  the 


OBJECTION,  FROM  THE  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST.     785 

Calvinistic  view  is  the  Docetism  of  the  heavenly  elements  — 
the  one  denies  the  testimony  of  the  senses  in  the  sphere  of  the 
senses,  and  the  other  denies  the  witness  of  the  faith  in  the 
sphere  of  faith.  The  senses  are  competent  witnesses  as  to 
where  bread  is ;  but  they  are  not  competent  witnesses  for  or 
against  the  supernatural  presence  of  a  body  which  is  in  per- 
sonal union  with  God.  We  have  no  more  right  to  reject  the 
reality  of  the  presence,  which  God's  word  affirms  of  Christ's 
body,  after  an  invisible  mode,  than  we  have,  with  the  Docet- 
ists,  to  reject  the  reality  of  His  visible  presence.  We  no  more 
saw  Christ  at  the  first  Supper  than  we  now  see  Him  at  His 
Supper.  We  believe  that  He  was  visibly  present  at  the  first, 
on  the  same  ground  of  divine  testimony  on  which  we  believe 
that  He  was  invisibly  present  in  the  sacramental  communica- 
tion. If  the  objector  assumes  that,  on  our  hypothesis,  the  first 
disciples  had  a  conflict  between  sight  and  faith,  lue  noiv,  at  least, 
have  no  such  conflict ;  for  we  have  the  same  testimony  in  regard 
to  both  —  the  testimony  of  our  senses  —  that  the  word  of  God 
declares  both.  With  equal  plausibility,  if  we  are  to  reason 
from  the  limitations  of  our  conceptions,  it  might  be  maintained 
that  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  could  not  be  present  at 
the  first  Supper.  Was  not  that  divine  nature  all  in  heaven  ? 
How  then  could  it  be  all  in  the  Supper?  Was  it  not  all  at 
Christ's  right  hand,  all  at  Christ's  left  hand,  all  above  Him, 
all  beneath  Him  ?  How  could  it  be  all  in  Him  ?  How  could 
the  personal  totality  of  Deity  be  present  in  Christ  when  the 
personal  totality  of  Deity  was  present  in  each  and  every  part 
of  the  illimitable?  If  the  totality  of  the  Deity  could  be  really 
in  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  really  in 
the  bread,  could  not  that  inseparable  presence  of  the  human- 
ity which  pertains  to  it,  as  one  person  of  the  Deity,  be  at  once 
conjoined  with  the  Christ  visible  before  them,  and  the  Christ 
invisible  of  the  sacramental  Communion  ?  What  the  divine 
nature  has  of  presence  per  se,  the  human  nature  has  through 
the  divine.  We  can  no  more  explain  the  divine  presence  than 
we  can  the  human.  It  is  indeed  easier,  if  the  divine  be  granted, 
to  admit  the  presence  of  a  humanity,  which  is  taken  into  the 
divine  personality,  than  it  is  to  rise  from  the  original  low  plain 

50 


786  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

of  natural  thinking,  to  the  primary  conception  of  tlie  omni- 
presence of  the  divine.  The  objectors  admit  the  latter:  they 
thus  admit  the  greater  mystery  ;  yet  they  blame  us  for  admit- 
ting the  less.  They  admit  the  great  fundamental  cause  of 
the  mystery,  to  wit,  the  inseparable  union  of  the  human 
nature  with  the  divine  personality  ;  and  then  deny  the  neces- 
sary effect  and  result  of  that  cause.  When  Zwingle,  at  Mar- 
burg, declares  that  "  God  does  not  propose  to  our  belief  things 
which  we  cannot  comprehend,"  Melancthon  makes  this  indig- 
nant note:  "Such  foolish  words  fell  from  him,  when  in  fact 
the  Christian  doctrine  presents  many  articles  more  incompre- 
hensible and  more  sublime  (than  that  article  of  the  true  pres- 
ence) ;  as,  for  example,  that  God  was  made  man,  that  this  person 
Christ,  who  is  true  God,  died.""^  The  doctrine  of  the  personal 
omnipresence  of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  at  the  point  at  which  it 
stands  in  theology,  is  less  difficult  to  receive  than  that  of  the 
essential  omnipresence  of  God  at  the  place  at  ichich  it  stands  in 
theology.  To  the  eye,  the  senses,  reason,  experience,  Jesus 
Christ  was  but  a  man.  He  who  can  believe,  against  the  appar- 
ent evidence  of  all  these,  that  the  bleeding  and  dying  Nazarene 
was  the  everlasting  God,  ought  not  to  hesitate,  when  He 
affirms  it,  to  believe  that  what  is  set  before  us  in  the  Holy 
Supper  is  more  than  meets  the  eye,  or  offers  itself  to  the  grasp 
of  reason.  The  interpretation  which  finds  mere  bread  in  the 
Institution  finds  logically  mere  man  in  the  Institutor.  When 
Jesus  sat  visibly  before  Nicodemus,  the  palpable  and  audible 
Son  of  man.  He  said :  "  The  Son  of  man  "  (not  "■  the  Son  of 
God  ")  "  is  in  heaven."  If  that  Son  of  man  could  be  with 
Nicodemus  in  the  manner  of  the  lower  sphere  of  His  powers, 
and  at  the  same  time  in  heaven  in  the  higher  sphere,  he  could 
be  with  His  disciples  at  the  solemn  testamentary  Supper,  after 
both  manners,  revealing  the  one  to  them  in  the  natural  light 
which  fiowed  from  His  body,  and  the  other  in  that  truer  light 
of  the  higher  world  of  which  He  is  Lord  —  the  ligbt  which 
streams  upon  the  eye  of  faith. 

But  there  is  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  many  that  the 
well-established  results  of  philosophical  thinking  in  the  modern 

*ChytrjBus:   Hist.  Aug.  Conf.  (Lat.),  Frankf.,  a.  M.,  1078,  641. 


PHILOSOPHY,   MODERN.  787 

world  are  in  conflict  here  with  the  Church's  faith.  But  those 
who  are  familiar  with  the  speculations  of  the  last  three  centu- 
ries are  aware  that  so  far  from  this  being  the  case,  y  pi.iiosophy, 
the  whole  history  of  metaphysical  thought  during  Modem. 
that  era  has  shown,  with  increasing  force,  the  entire  inability 
of  philosophy  to  disturb,  by  any  established  results,  the  sim- 
ple faith  which  rests  on  the  direct  testimony  of  the  word.  A 
oflance  at  the  various  modern  schools  will  demonstrate  this. 

Why,  then,  if  we  ask  for  the  light  of  that  modern  philosophy 
which  it  is  thought  can  clear  up  the  mystery  left  by  revela- 
tion, why,  in  any  case,  do  we  believe,  or  know,  or  think  we  know, 
that  there  is  a  human  body  objectively  in  our  presence?  It  is 
regarded  by  the  mass  of  thinkers  as  certain  that  we  never 
saw  a  human  body,  never  felt  it ;  but  that  the  consciousness 
of  the  human  soul  is  confined  to  its  own  modifications  and  im- 
pressions, and  that  our  conviction  that  the  modification  we 
perceive,  when  we  are  convinced  that  a  human  body  is  before 
us.  is  the  result  of  an  objective  body,  and  consequently  presup- 
poses its  substantial  existence,  is  an  act  not  of  cognition,  but 
of  faith  —  a  faith  which  has  been  repudiated  by  the  whole 
school  of  pure  idealists,  by  many  of  the  greatest  European 
speculators,  and  in  the  philosophy  of  nearly  the  entire  Orient. 
So  far  as  philosophy,  therefore,  can  determine  it,  we  have  no 
more  absolute  cognition  of  the  objective,  visible  presence  of  a 
natural  body  than  we  have  of  the  objective,  supernatural,  in- 
visible presence  of  a  supernatural  body.  Our  persuasion  of 
either  presence  is  an  inference.,  an  act  of  belief.,  conditioned  by 
testimony.  We  may  think  we  have  more  testimony  for  the 
first  inference  than  for  the  second  ;  but  it  is  none  the  less  infer- 
ence: it  is  not  cognition.  We  believe  that  bread  is  there,  on 
the  evidence  of  the  senses ;  we  believe  that  Christ's  body  is 
there,  on  the  evidence  of  the  word.  The  knowledge  or  belief  of 
the  nonego,  or  external  world,  involves  one  of  the  grandest  prob- 
lems of  speculative  philosophy.  The  popular  idea  that  we  are 
cognizant  of  the  very  external  things  in  themselves  which  we 
are  said  to  see,  hear,  and  feel,  is  entirely  false.  All  accurate 
thinkers,  of  every  school,  admit  this.  This  is  the  common 
ground  of  the  extremest  idealism  and  of  the  extremest  realism. 


788  CONSERVATIVE    REFOEMATIOK 

Hegel  and  ITanulton  stand  together  upon  it.  So  much  is  not 
speculation  :  it  is  demonstration  ;  and  yet  to  the  mass  of  minds 
this  demonstrated  fact  in  metaphysics  seems  as  palpable  and 
ridiculous  a  falsehood  as  could  be  devised. 

What  modern  philosophy  can  do  here  will  be  best  seen  by 
looking  at  such  of  its  results  and  efforts  as  most  decidedly  in- 
volve the  matter  under  discussion. 

The  school  of  theological  idealism,  in  which  Berkeley  is  the 

great  master,  maintained  that  there  is    no   substance  proper 

except   spirit,   the   divine   Spirit,    God,  or   created   or   finite 

^,     ,     .    ,  spirits,  among:  whom  are  men.     AVhile  the  common 

T  h  e  o  1  o  g  1  Ciil       ir^  '  o 

ideal  ism  .-Berke-  thelstic  vlew  is  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  ultimate 
'^-'  cause  of  properties  or  phenomena,  and  that  he  has 

made  them  inhere  in  substances,  which  thus  become  interme- 
diate causes  of  the  properties  which  inhere  in  them,  Berkeley 
holds  that  there  is  no  intermediate  cause  of  properties,  no  sub- 
stance in  which  they  inhere,  but  that  the  ultimate  cause,  God's 
will,  is  the  only  cause,  and  that  it  groups  them  without  sub- 
stance, under  the  same  laws  of  manifestation,  as  the  common 
view  supposes  to  be  conditioned  by  substance.  Spirit  is  the 
only  substance ;  there  is  no  essential  nonego  relative  to  an  in- 
dividual ego,  except  other  egos.  Objective  reality  presupposes 
originating  mind,  and  mind  acted  upon.  There  are  but  two 
factors  in  all  finite  cognition:  the  ultimate  causal  mind,  and 
the  mind  affected  by  it.  Phenomena  are  but  operations  under 
laws  of  mind  on  miiul,  and  in  ultimate  cause,  of  the  infinite 
upon  the  finite.  Annihilate  spirit,  and  all  reality  ceases.  The 
world  which  appeals  to  our  consciousness  is  but  the  result  of 
the  operations  of  the  Divine  mind  upon  the  human.  Berkeley 
does  not  deny  the  reality  of  the  phenomena,  but  he  says  that 
the  solution  of  the  phenomena  is  not  the  existence  of  a  mate- 
rial substance  —  a  thing  which  all  philosophy  grants  that 
we  can  only  conceive  and  can  never  reach  —  but  the  solution  is 
the  direct  agency  of  that  divine  cause  which,  in  the  ordinary 
philosophy,  is  considered  as  a  cause  of  causes,  that  is,  what 
the  ordinary  philosophy  says,  God  works  through  substance 
''  intermediately,"  the  idealist  says  God  works  through  phe- 
nomena,  without    substance,    ''  immediately.  ''       The   whole 


TRANSCENDENTAL  ID EALIS M—KANT.  789 

question,  therefore,  between  the  Christian  theological  idealist 
and  the  Christian  cosmo-thetical  idealist  is,  really,  whether 
God  operates  through  phenomena,  grouped  simply  by  His 
causative  will  according  to  fixed  laws,  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
through  objective  substances  in  which  attributes  actually  in- 
here;  whether  lie  operates  upon  our  mind  in  producing  im- 
pressions we  connect  with  a  supposed  external  world  "  imme- 
diately "  or  "mediately."  It  has  been  said  by  great  philosophers, 
who  rejected  the  former  species  of  idealism,  that  though  no  man 
can  believe  it,  no  man  can  confute  it ;  and  it  is  claimed  by 
its  advocates  that  it  never  has  been  confuted.  That  no  man 
can  believe  it,  is  certainly  not  true.  We  have  the  same  evi- 
dence that  confessedly  deep  thinkers  have  believed  it  that  we 
have  that  men  believe  any  other  doctrine.  But  if  the  deepest 
thinking  of  some  of  the  deepest  thinkers  can  reach  such  a 
theory,  where  shall  we  place  the  crudities  of  the  popular  phi- 
losophy or  want  of  philosophy  ?  How  little  can  it  settle  by  its 
speculations. 

The  school  of  "  transcendental  idealism,'*  if  it  be  proper  to  call 
it  "  idealism  "  at  all,  has  its  greatest  modern  representative  in 
Kant ;  and  it  is  said,  "  Kant  cannot,  strictly  speaking,  be  called 
an  idealist,  inasmuch  as  he  accepts  objects  outside  of  the  Ego, 
which  furnish  the  material  for  ideas,  a  material  to  Tn.nsce.identai 
which  the  Ego,  in  accordance  with  primary  laws,  ideaiism-Kant. 
merely  gives  form."*  The  weakness  of  Kant's  system  was  its 
arbitrary  separation  between  the  practical  and  the  speculative. 
He  held  that  the  data  of  perception  are  valid  in  the  practical 
sphere  both  of  thought  and  action,  but  cannot  be  accepted  as 
proven,  and  therefore  valid,  in  the  sphere  of  speculation.  The 
practical  here  reached  a  result  which  transcended  the  powers  of 
the  speculative.  To  the  speculative  it  was  not,  indeed,  dis- 
proven,  but  only  non-proven ;  yet,  as  non-proven,  it  made  his 
system  one  which  admitted,  on  one  side,  the  speculative  possi- 
bility of  the  purest  idealism,  while  on  the  other,  at  the  sacrifice 
of  internal  consistency,  he  reached  for  himself  a  hypothetical 
realism,  or  cosmo-tlietical  idealism.  All  speculative  thinking 
in  Germany  since  has,  more  or  less,  turned  upon  the  vindica- 

*  Fiirtmaier:  Philoioph.  Real  Lexicon.     Augsburg,  1854,  Idealismus. 


790  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

tion  or  repairing  of  this  inconsistency,  or  the  running  out  of 
one  or  other  side  of  it  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other. 

The  school  of  subjective  idealism^  or  absolute  subjectivity^  holds 
that  all  existence  is  subjective.  Mind  is  the  only  essence.  It 
sets  aside  a  cosmos  or  external  reality  altogether,  denies  the 
objective  existence  of  all  matter,  maintains  that  our  seeming 
consciousness,  through  our  senses,  is  not  really  the  result  of 
anything  outside  the  mind.  The  assumed  external  thing,  and 
the  image  of  it,  are  one  thing,  and  that  is  a  modification  of  the 
mind.  The  conscious  person,  the  ego^  is  the  sole  proper  reality, 
c  ,.  ,.    Ti  1    This  is  Fichte's  system  in  its  entire  form.     Kant 

Subjective  Ideal-  •/ 

ism-Fichte.  ]jad  avoided  absolute  idealism  by  granting  the 
existence  of  sensuous  intuitions  to  which  real  objects,  distinct 
from  the  mind,  correspond.  But  as  the  notions  of  pure  reason, 
or  universal  notions,  are  not,  according  to  Kant,  to  be  styled 
objectively  real  because  their  objective  reality  cannot  be  de- 
monstrated ;  and  as  it  is  equally  impossible,  on  the  principles 
of  Kant,  to  demonstrate  the  objective  reality  of  sensuous  intui- 
tions, Fichte  drew  the  inference  that  these  latter  ought  also  to 
be  regarded  as  mere  subjective  phenomena,  and  that  conse- 
quently all  so-called  realities  are  but  creations  of  the  Ego,  and 
all  existence  no  more  than  thought.* 

Fichte's  later  views  are  essentially  difterent.  He  held  in  his 
riper  period  that  it  is  not  the  finite  ego  or  limited  conscious- 
i,ies8,  but  God  the  primary  consciousness,  whose  life  reveals 
itself  in  the  infinite  multiplicity  of  circumstances,  who  is  to  be 
reo:arded  as  the  ultimate  reason  of  all  essence. 

The  school  of  objective  idealism  holds  to  the  system  of  the 
absolute  identity  of  the  object  supposed  to  be  perceived,  and  the 
8ul)ject,  the  mind,  perceiving.  This  school  is  represented  in 
Schelling  in  his  second  stage,  and  Hegel  in  his  first,  and 
oi.jective  id.-ai-  ^^jusiu.  Both  thc  external  thing  and  the  con- 
ism— Hegel.  scious  persou  are  existences  equally  real  or  ideal; 
but  they  are  manifestations  of  the  absolute,  the  infinite,  or 
unconditioned.  Mind  and  matter  are  phenomenal  modifica- 
tions of  the  same  common  substance. 

*  These  views  are  developed  especially  in  his  work:  Ucber  den  Bcgriff  der 
Wissenschaftslehre  (1794),  1708.  and  in  his  Grundlage  der  gesammten  Wissen- 
Bchaftsk'hre,  Jena  and  Lpz.  (1791),  ISOJ. 


REALISTIC  IDEALISM.  791 

The  soberest  and  best  form  of  idealism,  which  is  indeed  also 
realism,  recognizes  the  external  world  as  a  real  thing,  but 
holds  that  we  can  have  cognition  of  it,  not  as  it  is  in  itself,  but 
as  it  is  phenomenally,  and  that  we  reach  a  ''^mediate  knowl- 
edge "  of  the  phenomena  by  the  direct  cognition  of  conscious- 
ness. The  mind  is  really  modiiied  by  these  phenomenal  causes, 
and  its  inference,  that  its  own  states  presuppose  lu. fistic  lueii 
ultimate  substantial  realities  without  which  these  '^"'• 
phenomena  would  not  be,  is  a  just  inference.  Hamilton  calls 
this  class  "  Hypothetical  Dualists,"  or  cosmothetic  idealists, 
and  says  that  to  it  "  the  great  majority  of  modern  philosophers 
are  to  be  referred."  It  is  an  idealism  which  acknowledges 
realities  which  transcend  the  sphere  of  the  senses,  and  which 
is  thus  compelled  to  admit  that  natural  faith  can  challenge  for 
its  verities  as  just,  if  not  as  positive,  an  assurance  as  is  given 
by  direct  cognition.  All  that  the  human  mind  immediately 
and  absolutely  knows  is  its  own  states  of  consciousness  — 
everything  else  is  inference,  intuitive  conviction,  irresistible 
faith.     ''  Mediate  knowledge  "  is  only  intellectual  faith. 

The  greatest  representative  of  another  school  in  effect  admits 
all  this.  Sir  William  Hamilton  says:  "The  existence  of  God 
and  immortality  are  not  given  us  as  phenomena,  as  objects  of 
immediate  knowledge."  Metaphysics:  Lect.  YII.  "The  ex- 
istence of  an  unknown  substance  is  only  an  inference  we  are 
compelled  to  make  from  the  existence  of  known  phenomena." 
"  Of  existence  absolutely  and  in  itself,  we  know  nothing." 
"  All  we  know  is  known  only  under  the  special  conditions 
of  our  faculties."  "  In  the  perception  of  an  external  ob- 
ject, the  mind  does  not  know  it  in  immediate  relation  to 
itself,  but  mediately  iu  relation  to  the  material  organs  of 
sense."  Lect.  YIII.  "  Consciousness  is  a  knowledge  solely  of 
what  is  now  and  here  present  to  the  mind  .  .  comprehends 
every  cognitive  act;  whatever  we  are  not  conscious  of,  that  ice 
do  not  know,'''  Dissert.  Supplem.  to  Reid.  "  Consciousness  is 
the  condition  of  all  internal  phenomena  .  .  comprises  within  its 
sphere  the  whole  phenomena  of  mind."  Lect.  X.  "  Con- 
sciousness is  an  immediate,  not  a  mediate,  knowledge.  We 
know   the   mental   rejpresentation  .  .  immediately  .   .    the   past 


792  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

mediately  .  .  through  the  mental  modification  which  represents 
it.  Consciousness  is  co-extensive  with  our  knowledge  .  .  our 
special  faculties  of  knowledge  are  only  modifications  of  con- 
sciousness. All  real  knowledge  is  an  immediate  knowledge. 
AVhat  is  said  to  be  mediately  known,  is,  in  truth,  not  known  to 
be,  but  only  believed  to  be ;  for  its  existence  is  only  an  infer- 
ence., resting  on  the  helief  that  the  mental  modification  truly 
represents  what  is  in  itself  beyond  the  sphere  of  knowledge." 
Lect.  XII. 

The  philosophical  thinkers,  whose  leader  we  have  just  quoted, 
who  claim  to  be  the  school  of  ''  Common  sense,"  and  vindi- 
cate their  position  as  consonant  with  the  popular  interpreta- 
tion of  consciousness,  are  entitled  by  Sir  William  Hamilton, 
,  ,,  ,  "Katural  Realists."  It  is  evident,  in  the  Lectures 
•«>"•  of  that  illustrious  philosophical  scholar,  that  he 

started  with  one  set  of  views,  and  experienced  at  least  three 
changes  before  he  reached  his  final  position  ;  and  this  final  posi- 
tion is  virtually  a  practical  return  to  the  first.  These  are  as 
follows:  1.  The  mind  has  no  immediate  knowledge  except  of 
its  own  states.  We  only  immediately  know  that  of  which  we 
are  conscious,  and  we  can  only  be  conscious  of  our  own  mental 
states.  Our  knowledge  of  the  external  world  is  therefore  medi- 
ated by  our  consciousness ;  it  is  an  inference  based  on  intuition 
and  irresistible  processes  —  is,  strictly  speaking,  belief,  not  cog- 
nition.    This  is  the  first  view,  or  Cosmothetic  Idealism. 

2.  The  pojmlar  impression  of  what  consciousness  aflirms  is 
the  true  standard  of  consciousness.  We  are  conscious  of  what- 
ever the  mass  of  people  think  we  are  conscious  of.  But  the 
mass  of  mankind  suppose  they  are  conscious  of  the  very  objects 
themselves  in  the  external  world.  Therefore,  we  are  conscious 
of  the  external  verities  themselves.  This  we  may  call  Vulgar 
Realism. 

3.  The  objective  causes  of  perception,  which  is  a  form  of  con- 
Bciousness  distinct  from  ^^'(/-consciousness,  are  only  such  parts 
of  the  nonego  as  come  in  contact  with  the  sensorium,  or  bodily 
organ  of  perception.     Of  these  the  soul  has  immediate  cogni 
tion.     Organic  Realism. 


NATURAL  REALISM.  793 

4.  The  soul  and  body  are  ijersonally  united,  so  that  our  per- 
ceptions are  composite,  embracing  the  sensuous  organ  as  modified 
by  the  nonego  in  contact  with  it,  and  the  mind  as  also  modified 
in  a  manner  which  cannot  be  explained.  The  nonego  outside 
of  the  man  is,  however,  on  this  theory,  still  hypothetical. 

For,  first  of  all,  it  does  not  claim  that  we  are  conscious  or  per- 
ceptive of  what  is  outside  of  the  individual.,  as  a  total  complex 
of  soul  and  body  ;  and,  secondly,  to  reach  the  nonego  which  it 
claims  to  establish,  it  is  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  the 
ego  is  a  personal  unity — both  soul  and  body.  The  modified 
organ  is,  therefore,  a  part  of  the  ego;  and  the  theory  meets  the 
horns  of  a  dilemma.  If  it  says  the  modification  of  the  organ 
is  within  the  man,  though  outside  of  the  mind.,  and,  therefore., 
is  perceived  as  a  nonego.,  it  denies  its  own  definition  of  the 
comjylex  person  on  which  the  theory  rests  —  for  the  man  is  the 
ego.  But  if  the  total  man  be  the  ego,  then  that  which  is  with- 
in either  part  of  his  person  is  within  the  ego ;  and  the  modifi- 
cations of  the  man,  be  they  where  they  may,  are  modifications 
of  the  ego,  and  not  objective  realities  existent  beyond  it.  This 
last  view  approximates  the  true  view,  which  may  be  styled 
Personal  Realism.  It  is  in  substance  a  renewal  of  the  first 
theory,  but  with  the  great  improvement  of  a  true,  yet  still  in- 
adequate, view  of  the  personality  and  unity  of  man.  Personal 
Realism  regards  man  as  a  being  of  two  natures,  inseparably 
conjoined  in  unity  of  person,  so  that  he  is  not  a  soul  ami  a 
body,  but  a  psychical  flesh,  or  incarnate  soul.  Apart  from  the 
personal  relation  of  these  two  parts,  there  can  be  no  man,  no 
true  human  body,  and  no  true  human  soul. 

Between  death  and  the  resurrection  there  is  only  a  relative, 
not  an  absolute  separation  between  soul  and  body  ;  and  the 
resurrection  itself  is  a  proof  that  the  two  natures  are  essential 
to  the  perfect,  distinctive,  human  personality.  A  human  spirit 
absolutely  disembodied  forever  would  not  be  a  man,  but  only 
the  spirit  of  a  man.  At  the  resurrection,  in  consequence  of  the 
changed  condition  of  unchanged  essences,  man  shall  be  a  spirit- 
ual body,  or  an  incorporate  spirit.  Before  the  resurrection,  as 
the  dead  live  "  to  God.''  both  as  to  body  and  soul,  both  body 
and  soul  live  to  each  other  "to  God,"  and  still  constitute  one 


794  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATION. 

person  "to  God."  Man  has  the  primary  natural  life,  in  which 
he  lives  in  both  soul  and  body,  to  man  and  God,  in  the  sphere 
of  nature.  Man  has  the  provisional,  intermediate,  and  super- 
natural life,  in  which  he  lives  no  more  to  man,  but  "  lives  to 
God  "  in  both  soul  and  body  in  the  sphere  of  the  supernatural. 
Man  has  the  ultimate  eternal  life,  the  resurrection  life,  which 
is  the  natural  life  of  heaven,  in  w^iich  he  lives  to  God  and 
man.  Then  is  he  a  spiritual  body — an  incorporate  spirit. 
J3oth  natures  in  the  highest  perfection  are  forever  in  super- 
organic  union.  Matt.  xxii.  32,  Luke  xx.  38  :  "  God  is  not  a  God 
of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living  ;  for  all  live  unto  Him,"  {in  Him, 
Arab. ;  with  Him,  ^thiop.)  This  is  to  show,  not  that  the  soul 
is  immortal,  but  that  the  "  dead  are  7riised,^'  37.  Marcion, 
Avho  acknowledged  only  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  rejected  this  whole 
passage.  He  held  to  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  rejected 
Christ's  teaching  of  the  immortality  of  man.  The  covenant 
God  is  the  God  of  the  ivhole  j^erson.  If  God  is  the  God  of 
Abraham,  he  is  the  God  of  the  whole  Abraham  ;  and  the 
whole  Abraham,  body  and  soul,  lives.  But  as  to  the  body  he 
is  dead  to  man  ;  nevertheless,  as  to  the  body,  he  still  lives  to 
God.  Body  and  soul  are  to  God  a  living  inseparable,  linked 
even  after  death  in  the  sphere  of  the  supernatural  —  the  sphere 
which  is  to  God.  Betw^een  death  and  the  resurrection,  the  body 
and  soul  remain  one  person  in  the  mind  and  in  the  hand  of  God. 
The  soul  of  the  dead  Christ  was  separated  from  His  body, 
so  far  as  ever}^  natural  and  organic  bond  is  concerned  ;  but  His 
body,  through  the  three  days,  remained  still  in  personal  unity 
with  the  divine  nature,  with  which  the  soul  also  was  united 
personally  ;  and  both,  being  held  inseparably  to  the  one  person, 
were  in  it  held  to  each  other  still  as  parts  of  one  person.  So 
that  the  body  of  Christ  truly  "  crucified,  dead,  and  buried," 
still  lived  to  God  ;  and  the  personal  union  of  the  human  nature, 
body  and  soul,  and  of  the  divine  nature,  was  unbroken.  In 
virtue  of  the  mediatorial  covenant,  by  w^iich  all  who  die  in 
Adam  are  made  alive  in  Christ  (1  Cor.  xv.  22),  the  personal 
relation  of  the  bodies  and  souls  of  all  the  dead  remains  un- 
oroken  to  God.  But  pre-eminently  in  the  case  of  those  who 
are  in  "mystic  union"  with  God  —  a  union  which   involves 


NATURAL  REALISM.  795 

both  body  and  soul  —  what  is  called  death  does  not  break  that 
union  with  Ilim  as  regards  either  part.  The  body  and  soul, 
separated  as  to  the  old  organic  bond  of  nature,  are  united  still 
to  each  other  by  being  united  to  God  —  for  all  live  to  Him.  The 
whole  person  in  both  natures  lives  to  God,  therefore  the  whole 
person  in  both  natures  lives  forever  —  man  is  immortal.  The 
intermediate  relation  must  be  provisional.  Dead  men  can  only 
live,  even  as  to  the  body,  to  God,  with  a  view  to  that  direct 
reunion  of  the  body  with  the  spirit  which  takes  place  in  the 
resurrection.     Therefore,  the  ''dead  are  raised." 

All,  then,  according  to  the  theory  which  is  the  highest  in 
its  assumption  as  to  our  absolute  knowledge  of  the  "  nonego  "  — 
or  external  world  —  all  then  that  we  know  is  so  much  of  light, 
as  is  successively  brought  upon  the  optic  nerve,  so  much  of 
vibrating  air  as  reaches  the  auditory  nerve,  and  so  through 
the  little  range  of  the  other  senses.  The  objective  reality^  which 
■causes  the  undulation  of  light  which  produces  the  image  on 
the  retina ;  the  objective  reality  which  produces  the  vibrations, 
which  the  tympanum  communicates  to  the  auditory  nerve ; 
all  this  is  equally,  as  on  the  second  theory,  to  be  accepted  on 
the  ground  of  intuitive  belief,  or  of  logical  process  ;  it  is  ivferred 
and  believed,  not  laiown.  How  little  then,  on  the  showing  of 
philosophy  itself,  even  in  its  extremest  pretensions,  is  it  able  to 
do  in  fixing  or  unfixing  our  faith  in  the  testimony  of  God. 

These  views,  which  we  have  presented,  are  the  sum  of  all 
the  best  philosophical  thinking  on  the  subject  of  the  relation 
of  the  mind  and  its  cognitions  to  the  reality  of  an  external 
world. 

Our  conviction  then,  that  the  causes  of  sensation  have  an 
objective  substantiality,  is  at  its  root  ethical  rather  than  intel- 
lectual. It  rests  upon  the  veracity  of  God.  j^o  theist  can 
deny  that  if  God  icill  so  to  do,  every  impression  we  now  receive 
could  be  made  upon  us  without  the  existence  of  matter.  What 
we  call  the  testimony  of  our  senses  is  worth  nothing  whatever, 
except  on  the  assumption  that  God  is  true;  and  to  take  that 
very  word  of  His  —  one  of  whose  grand  objects  is  to  correct 
the  mistakes  of  our  natural  senses  and  natural  thinking  —  to 
treat  this  as  a  something  whose  plain  teachings  are  to  be  set 


796  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

aside  by  the  very  thing  whose  infirmity  necessitates  the  giving 
of  it,  is  as  unphilosophical  as  it  is  unchristian. 

An  objection  which  is  a  species  under  the  metaphysical,  and 

which  is,  perhaps  more  frequently  used  than  any  other,  is,  that 

it  is  impossible  that  a  true  human  body  should  be  really  present 

in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time  —  the 

ObjtctioD  from  ^  ^ 

the  niUuic  of  essential  nature  of  the  body,  and  the  essential 
*''^^^'  nature  of  space,  make  the  thing  impossible.     It  is 

worthy  of  note  that  the  objection  is  usually  put  in  the  vague 
assertion  that  a  body,  or  a  human  body,  cannot  be  thus  present. 
In  this  already  lies  a  certain  evasiveness  or  obscuration  of  the 
real  question.  The  incautious  thinker  is  thrown  oft'  his  guard, 
as  if  the  assertion  controverted  is  that  a  body,  or  a  human 
body  in  general,  that  every  and  any  body  can  be  present  in  the 
sense  denied.  There  is  a  fallacy  both  as  to  what  is  present,  and 
what  the  mode  of  the  presence  is.  As  to  the  first,  the  question 
fair!}'  stated  is  :  Can  Christ's  body  be  present  ?  Can  a  body 
which  is  iu  inseparable  personal  unity  with  the  Godhead  be 
present  ?  Can  that,  which  no  human  body  simply  as  such 
could  do,  be  done  by  the  body  of  our  Lord,  whose  relations  and 
powers  are  unique  and  transcendent?  The  question  of  possi- 
bility all  through  is  not  what  is  possible  to  a  human  body,  in 
its  natural  and  familiar  limitations,  but  what  is  possible  to 
God.  Is  there  evidence  that  it  is  His  will  that  the  body  of 
our  Lord  should  be  sacramentally  present  at  His  Supper ;  and 
if  God  wills  it,  is  it  possible  for  Him  to  fulfil  it?  If  the  evi- 
dence is  clear  that  God  does  so  will,  that  man  is  no  Chris- 
tian wdio  denies  that  His  will  can  be  consummated  ;  and  that 
man,  who,  because  he  thinks  the  thing  is  impossible,  refuses  to 
accept  what,  but  for  that  difficulty,  he  would  acknowledge  to  be 
invincible  testimony  as  to  God's  will,  is  a  Rationalist ;  his 
mode  of  interpretation  is  Socinianizing,  though  he  may  be 
nominally  orthodox. 

On  the  question  of  possil)ility,  it  is  well  to  remember, y?rs"^, 

that  we  do  not  know  tbe  absolute  limits  of  the  possible.     All 

sound  philosophers  acknowledge  that  there  are  incontrovertible 

Tiiein.possiMc.  facts  whosc  possibility  not  only  cannot  be  demon- 

8cif-exi8tti.ce.      gtratcd,  but  which  are  overthrown  speculatively  by 


CREA  TION—  OMNIPRESENCE.  797 

all  the  logic  which  man  is  able  to  bring  to  bear  upon  the  question. 
The  philosophy  of  the  world  of  thinkers  has  nnysteries,  which 
it  accepts  as  irresistibly  proven  or  attested  to  consciousness, 
which  are  as  impossible,  logically,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
or  the  personal  presence  of  the  undivided  Christ  in  Ilis  Supper. 
All  systems  of  Christian  theology,  even  the  lowest,  acknowl- 
edge that  certain  things,  which  seem  to  reason  and  logic  im- 
possible, are  not  only  possible  but  actual ;  as,  for  example,  that 
there  should  be  a  self-existent  being.     If  there  be  one  thin"*, 
which,  beyond  all  others  of  its  class,  seems  to  the  mind  of  man 
logically  impossible,  it  is  this  very  thing  of  self-existence  ; 
yet  it  is  most  clear  that  we  must  choose  between  the  idea  of 
one  self-existent  orof  a  vast  n  umber  of  self-existents.  The  normal 
mind  of  man,  on  an  intelligent  presentation  of  the  whole  case, 
at  once  chooses  the  former,  and  thus  concedes  that  the  impossi- 
ble, logically,  is  the  presupposition  of  all  that  is  possible  and 
actual.     Because  self-existence  seems  to  us  impossi])le,  we  are 
compelled  to  believe  in  the  self-existent.     We  have  to  choose 
between,  once  for  all,  accepting  the  seemingly  impossible,  and 
thus  having  a  ground  for  all  that  is  possible,  or,  accepting  the 
same  seemingly  impossible,  multiplied  infinitely.     But  having 
accepted  the  seemingly  impossible  in  essence^  by  believing  in 
God,  we  are  again  compelled  to  acknowledge  the   seemingly 
impossible  in  act^  by  accepting  the  fact  of  creation. 
Granted  an  infinite  mind,  yet  does  it  seem  impossi- 
ble that  by  its  mere  will,  material  and  intellectual  being  should 
come  into  existence.     We  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  that 
out   of  material  nothino;  material   somethino:   is  brou2:ht  to 
being.      The  lowest  thing  that  is,  we  argue,  must  imply  pre- 
existent  mind,  to  adapt  it  to  its  ends  ;  yet  the  highest  thing 
that  is,  God  himself,  though  He  be  an  entity  of  perfect  adapta- 
tion, is  not  adapted,  but  is  absolute. 

Another  mystery  recognized  in  all  Christian  theology  is  that 
there  should  be  a  substantial  presence  of  this  Being,  such  that 
the  whole  of  His  essence  shall  be  in  each  part  of 

.,  .  ,  ,  ,  Till  !•        Oniiiiiiresonce. 

the  universe ;  and  yet  that  there  shall  be  no  multi- 
plication of  essence  or  presence  ;  that  the  entire  essence  should 
pervade  infinity,  and  yet  be  indivisible;  so  that  there  is  no 


798  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK 

part  of  God  anywhere,  and  that  the  whole  of  God  is  every- 
where, no  less  in  the  least  than  in  the  greatest,  no  less  in  the 
minutest  part  than  in  the  absolute  whole ;  in  place,  yet  illocal, 
in  all  parts,  yet  impartible,  in  infinity,  yet  unextended. 

The  idea  of  eternity,  of  something  to  which  all  time  is  un- 
related, to  which  millions  are  no  more  than  a  unit,  each  being 
relativel}^  to  eternity  nothing,  of  which  a  trillion 

Eternity.  .,,.  ^  .  ,  •,  •,  . 

trillion  of  years  is  no  larger  part  than  the  minutest 
fraction  of  a  second  —  a  something  of  which  we  are  compelled 
to  conceive  as  back  of  us,  and  before  us,  but  which  is  not  back 
of  us  nor  before  us ;  in  which  we  seem  surely  to  have  reached 
the  middle  point,  this  centre  at  which  we  stand,  but  which 
has  no  middle  point ;  an  infinite  gone,  and  an  infinite  to  come, 
but  which  has  not  gone  and  is  not  to  come,  but  ever  is,  with- 
out past,  or  future,  or  proportion  ;  this  is  a  something  which 
to  reason  and  logic  is  utterly  incomprehensible  and  impossible 
upon  the  one  side,  as  on  the  other  it  is  the  irresistible  neces- 
sitj^  of  our  thinking.  It  is  inconceivable  how  it  is,  or  even 
what  it  is ;  but  we  can  no  more  doubt  that  it  is  than  we  can 
doubt  our  own  being. 

If  we  come  within  the  limits  of  the  theology  of  the  Cath- 
olic creeds,  we  find  the  seemingly  impossible  here  also  accepted 
as  necessary  truth.     That  the  entire  essence  of  the  Godhead, 
the  unity  of  the  divine  Being  unimpaired,  shall  in  its  modi- 
fications form  the  personality  of  the  three  persons, 
each  person  having  the   whole   essence,  yet  being 
personally  distinct  from  each  of  the  others,  not  three  essences, 
nor  one  essence  in  three  thirds,  but  one  essence  entire  in  each 
—  this   swallows  up   the    understanding   of  man.     That    the 
infinite  Godhead  should  so  take  to  itself  a  true  human  body, 
that  the  "  human "    and    "  divine "   shall    henceforth  be   one 
Hypostatic  p^i'soH,   SO   that    we   can   say,   not    by   mere    ac- 
uMion.  conimodation   of  language,  but  literally,  "  Christ 

made  the  universe,  and  God  purchased  the  Church  with 
His  own  blood"  —  this  is  fathomless.  God  is  substantially 
present  in  every  human  creature:  How  is  it  then  that  but 
one  of  our  race  is  God  incarnate?  However  fathomless 
then,  a  dv)ctrine  whose   basis  is   the   truth,  that   the   God  of 


ONUS  PROBAND!.  799 

eternity,  the  God  of  oninipotence,  the  God  of  the  unity  in 
trinity,  has  a  human  nature,  forming  one  person  with  His  own, 
may  be,  we  are  bound  to  accept  it,  if  His  word  teaches  it ;  and 
we  have  seen  that  His  word  does  teach  it. 

There  has  been  great  disingenuousness  among  some  of  the 
opposers  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  They 
have  first  urged  the  speculative  difficulties  of  natural  reason 
against  the  direct  sense  of  the  text ;  then  professing  to  be  will- 
ing to  bow^  before  the  Word  of  God  with  absolute 

,         .       .  ,  ,     .  1  1  .1  Onus  prol'jinrli. 

submission,  they  yet  claim  to  have  snow^n,  on  the 
ground  of  natural  reason,  that  the  Word  does  not  teach  the 
doctrine  for  which  wq  here  contend.  Kow  the  true  mode  of 
Scripture  interpretation  is  :  First.  To  fix  the  direct  and  literal 
sense  of  the  words  by  the  law^s  of  language.  Second.  To  ad- 
here to  that  sense,  unless,  under  a  law  acknowledged  by  God's 
Word  itself,  w^e  are  bound  to  accept  a  figurative  sense.  Those 
who  depart  from  the  literal  sense  in  a  disputed  case  are  always 
by  that  fact  thrown  upon  the  defensive.  He  wdio  has  the 
literal  sense  of  the  text  wath  him,  is  under  no  obligation  to 
ar2:ue  for  his  doctrine  until  it  shall  be  shown  that  the  literal 
sense  is  not  tenable.  On  the  main  point  of  the  objective  pres- 
ence, proven  by  taking  the  words  in  the  literal  sense,  the  im- 
mense majority  of  Christendom  has  been  and  is  a  unity.  Those 
who  deny  the  doctrine  are  bound  to  show  that  the  literal  sense 
cavnot  (not  simply  may  not)  be  the  true  one.  To  say  the  literal 
sense  cannot  be  the  true  one,  because  a  small  minority  in  the 
Christian  Church  think  that  sense  involves  something  in  con- 
flict with  their  reason,  is  not  only  rationalistic,  but  egotistic 
and  conceited  in  the  last  degree.  Those  who  accept  the  literal 
sense  have  quite  as  much  natural  reason,  quite  as  much  power 
of  seeing  the  difficulties  it  suggests,  as  the  rationalizing  mi- 
nority. The  question  can  never  be  settled  on  that  ground.  The 
attempt  to  do  it  has  only  wrought  division.  It  has  made 
chaos  where  Christendom  before  had  order.  The  Reason, 
w^hich  has  rejected  the  literal  sense,  has  never  been  able  to  fix 
another.  It  has  dropped  pearl  after  pearl  of  truth  into  its 
vinegar,  and  the  total  result  is  spoiled  vinegar  and  ruined  pearls. 
The  Reason  has  been  injured  by  the  abuse  of  the  truth,  and  the 


800  CONSERVATIVE   EEFOBMATION. 

truth  has  been  perverted  by  the  abuse  of  the  Reason.    But  even 
on  the  low  ground  on  which  this  rationalizing  wishes  to  put 
this  question,  it  has  not  the  strength  it  claims  for  itself.     If 
we  consent,  for  argument's  sake,  to  carry  the  question  out  of 
the  sphere  of  the  supernatural,  where  it  belongs,  to  the  sphere 
of  the  natural,  where  it  does  not  belong,  how  little  are  we 
Ti.e    natnrai.  prepared  to  affirm  of  the  ultimate  power  of  God  in 
Nature  of  things.  ||jg  naturol  loovld.     AVe  indeed  speak  of  the  nature 
of  things,  and  may  say,  the  thing  being  so,  its  nature  must  be 
so ;  but  we  may  not  speak  of  a  nature  of  things  alien  to  and 
superior  to  the  will  of  God.     Even  if  we  grant  that  there  is 
a  nature  of  things  not  the  result  of  the  nnll  of  God  ;  as,  for  ex- 
ample, the  nature  of  God  himself,  and  the  nature  of  the  finite 
as  finite,  of  the  created  as  created,  of  the  made  as  inferior  to 
the  maker  ;  yet  we  cannot  hold  that  the  absolute  naUirc,  or  the 
relative  naUtrc,  is  contradictory  to  the  absolute  will.     God  is  not 
omnipotent  as  the  result  of  His  willing  to  be  omnipotent ;  but 
neither  is  omnipotent  nature  possibly  contradictory  to  the  ab- 
solute Kill.     The  nature  of  the  created  as  created,  the  nature  by 
which    the  creature,  in  virtue  of  its  being  a  creature,  is  of 
necessity,  and  not  as  a  result  of  will,  not  creator,  but  creature, 
is  not  contradictory  to  the  will  of  God.     His  will  perfectly 
concurs,  though  it  is  not  the  cause  of  the  nature  of  things,  ab- 
stractly considered.     But  all  things  themselves  exist  by  God's 
will.     Without  His  will,  therefore,  there  would  be  no  things, 
and  consequently  no  concrete  nature  of  things.     The  concrete 
nature  of  things,  therefore,  is  the  result  of  God's  will.     While, 
therefore,  the  creature  cannot  be  the  creator,  and,  by  the  essen- 
tial necessity  of  the  presupposition,  only  the  creature  results 
from  the  divine  will,  and  of  necessity  has  a  creaturely  and  finite 
nature,  yet  it  is  simply  and  solely  because  of  the  divine  will 
that  things  exist,  and  that  there  is  an  existent  nature  of  things. 
Whatever,  therefore,  may   be   the   speculative   relation    into 
which  the  mind  puts  the  abstract  nature  of  things  and  the 
divine  will,  the  actual  nature  of  things  and  the  divine  will  are 
in  perfect  harmony  ;    and  the  actual  nature  would  have  no 
being  without  the  will.     Actual  things  and  their  actual  nature, 


SELF-CONTRADICTIOK  801 

in  a  word,  are  so  related  to  God's  will  that,  knowing  them,  we 
know  it  —  knowing  it,  we  know  them. 

We  admit  that  there  are  ideas,  or  what  are  called  ideas, 
which  are  self-contradictory,  and  to  which,  therefore,  there 
can  be  no  corresponding  realities.  Yet,  in  regard  to  the  great 
mass  of  things,  which  tlie  uncultured  mind  would  assert  to  be 
absolutely  self-contradictory,  and  not  necessarily  merely  such 
to  our  faculties,  it  may  be  affirmed,  that  the  deepest  thinkers 
would  deny  that  they  were  demonstrably  absolutely  contra- 
dictory. Most  things  are  said  to  be  self-contra-  seif.ct.nttadic- 
dictory  because  we  have  never  seen  them,  nor  are  fon. 
we  able  to  conceive  of  them,  in  harmony.  But  with  finite 
faculties,  this  only  demonstrates  their  relative,  not  their  abso- 
lute, self-contradiction.  Over  an  immense  field  of  thought,  we 
are  not  safe  in  affirming  or  denying  certain  things  to  be  self- 
consistent  or  self-contradictory.  Any  man,  who  will  take  up 
the  systems  of  human  speculation  wrought  out  by  the  greatest 
minds  of  all  ages,  will  find  that  there  is  almost  nothing,  in  the 
way  of  supposition,  which  can  be  set  aside  on  the  ground  that 
the  human  mind  invariably  rejects  it  as  impossible.  It  is 
wonderful  how  few  things  there  are  not  only  not  demon- 
strably absolutely  impossible,  but  which  are  relatively  impos- 
sible to  all  minds. 

John-  Stuart  Mill  (one  of  the  most  vigorous  and  most  skep- 
tical  of  the  speculative  thinkers  of  our  day)  maintains  that,  in 
a  certain  course  which  is  conceivable,  the  human  mind  would 
come  to  consider  the  proposition  that  twice  two  are  ^ve  as  fixed, 
as  it  now  considers  the  proposition  that  twice  two  are  four. 
A  few  extracts  from  the  examination  of  Hamilton's  Philos- 
ophy, by  this  illustrious  thinker,  will  show  what  results  are 
compatible  with  the  ripest  philosophical  thinking.  He  pre- 
sents the  following  among  the  results  of  the  latest  speculation  : 

"  If  things  have  an  inmost  nature,  apart,  not  only  from  the 
impressions  which  they  produce,  but  from  all  those  which  they 
are  fitted  to  produce,  on  any  sentient  being,  this  inmost  nature 
is  unknowable,  inscrutable,  and  inconceivable,  not  to  us  merely, 
but  to  every  other  creature."  "  Time  and  Space  are  only 
modes  of  our  perceptions,  not  modes  of  existence ;  and  higher 
51 


802  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

intelligences  are,  possibly,  not  bound  by  them.  Things,  in 
themselves,  are  neither  in  time  nor  in  space."  Brown  is  "of 
opinion  that  though  we  are  assured  of  the  objective  existence 
of  a  world  external  to  the  mind,  our  knowledge  of  this  world 
is  absolutely  limited  to  the  modes  in  which  we  are  affected  hy 
it."  ''There  may  be  innumerable  modes  of  being  wliich  are 
inaccessible  to  our  faculties.  The  only  name  we  can  give  them 
is,  Unknowable."  Chap.  IL  Quoting  Hamilton's  Declaration, 
"  There  is  no  ground  for  inferring  a  certain  fact  to 
be  impossible  merely  from  our  inability  to  conceive 
its  possibility,"  Mill  adds,  "I  regard  this  opinion  as  per- 
fectly just.  If  anything  which  is  now  inconceivable  by  us 
w^ere  shown  to  us  as  a  fact,  we  should  soon  find  ourselves  able 
to  conceive  it.  We  should  be  in  danger  of  going  over  to  the 
opposite  error,  and  believing  that  the  negative  of  it  is  impos- 
sible. Inconceivability  is  a  imrely  subjective  thing,  arising  from 
the  mental  antecedents  of  the  individual  mind,  or  from  those 
of  the  human  mind  generally,  at  a  particular  period,  and  can- 
not give  us  any  insight  into  the  possibilities  of  IS'ature.  But 
w^ere  it  granted  that  inconceivability  is  not  solely  the  conse- 
quence of  limited  experience,  but  that  some  incapacities  of 
conceiving  are  inherent  in  the  mind,  and  inseparable  from  it, 
this  would  not  entitle  us  to  infer  that,  what  we  are  thus  inca- 
pable of  conceiving,  caunot  exist.  Such  an  inference  would 
only  be  warrantable,  if  we  could  know  a  priori  that  we  must 
have  been  created  capable  of  conceiving  whatever  is  capable 
of  existing ;  that  the  universe  of  thought  and  that  of  reality  .  .  . 
must  have  been  framed  in  complete  correspondence  with  one 
another.  That  this  is  the  case  ...  is  the  foundation  (among 
others)  of  the  systems  of  Schelling  and  Hegel ;  but  an  assump- 
tion more  destitute  of  evidence  could  scarcely  be  made,  nor  can 
we  easily  imagine  any  evidence  that  could  prove  it,  unless  it 
were  revealed  from  above.  What  is  inconceivable  cannot, 
therefore,  be  inferred  to  be  false.  .  .  .  What  is  inconceivable 
is  not,  therefore,  incredible."  Chap.  VI.  Furthermore,  to 
argue  from  the  iiiconceivablc  as  deducible  from  the  supposed 
properties  of  matter  would  be  very  liillacious  in  fact,  w^hile 
we  see  the  idealism  of  Asia,  part  of  Germany,  and  of  Xew 


HAMILTON.  803 

Eiificlancl,  denying  at  one  extreme  the  very  existence  of  matter, 
and  the  materialism  of  part  of  Europe  and  America  insistino;, 
at  the  other  extreme,  that  nothing  exists  but  matter.  A  third 
tendency,  represented  in  Locke  and  his  school,  throws  a  bridge 
by  which  men  can  pass  over  to  the  first  or  the  second,  by  making 
the  world  of  the  senses  the  only  world  of  cognition,  and  by  main- 
tainino;  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things,  nothing 
in  the  nature  of  matter  or  of  thought,  to  prevent  matter  from 
being  endowed  with  the  power  of  thought  and  feeling.  But 
this  is  in  effect  to  obliterate  the  essential  distinction  between 
spirit  and  matter.  If  matter  can  be  endowed  with  the  property 
of  thinking,  it  can  be  endowed  with  all  the  other  properties  of 
mind ;  that  is,  mind  can  be  matter,  matter  can  be  mind ;  but 
if  the  finite  mind  can  be  finite  matter,  the  infinite  mind  can 
be  infinite  matter,  and  we  reach  a  materialistic  pantheism. 
The  skeptical  school  of  Locke  itself  being  judge,  we  can,  from 
the  limitations  usually  belonging  to  matter,  draw  no  inference 
against  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Supper. 

While  we  repudiate  all  these  extremes  of  speculation,  we 
yet  see  in  them  that  the  human  mind  is  unable  to  settle  what 
are  the  precise  limitations  imposed  by  the  nature  of  things  on 
matter  and  spirit,  or  to  say  how  much  or  how  little  of  what  is 
commonly  considered  the  exclusive  property  of  the  one  God 
may  be  pleased  to  give  to  the  other.  Sir  William  Hamilton 
says,  "  It  has  been  commonly  confessed  that,  as  substances,  we 
know  not  what  is  matter,  and  are  ignorant  of  what  is  mind."* 
"  Consciousness  in  its  last  analysis  .  .  .  is  a  faith."  "  Reason 
itself  must  rest  at  last  upon  authority  ;  for  the  original  data 
of  reason  do  not  rest  on  reason,  but  are  necessarily  accepted  by 
reason  on  the  authority  of  what  is  beyond  itself.  These  data 
are,  therefore,  in  rigid  propriety,  belief  or  trust,  jj^^^^jj^^jj 
Thus  it  is  that  in  the  last  resort  we  must,  perforce, 
philosophically  admit  that  belief  is  the  j)rimary  condition  of  rea- 
son^ and  not  reason  the  ultimate  ground  of  belief.  We  are 
compelled  to  surrender  the  proud  Intellige  ut  Credas  of  Abe- 
lard,  to  content  ourselves  with  the  humble  Crede  id  intelligas 
of  Anselm."    "  We  do  not  in  propriety  know  that  what  we  are 

*  Discussions.  Appendix. 


804  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION'. 

compelled  co  perceive  as  not  self  is  not  a  perception  of  self,  and 
we  can  only  on  reflection  believe  such  to  be  the  case."*  Mill 
sums  up  the  opinion  of  Hamilton  as  this  :  "  Belief  is  a  higher 
source  of  evidence  than  knowledge;  belief  is  ultimate:  knowl- 
edge only  derivative ;  knowledge  itself  finally  rests  on  be- 
lief;  natural  beliefs  are  the  sole  warrant  for  all  our  knowl- 
edge. Knowledge,  therefore,  is  an  inferior  ground  of  assurance 
to  natural  belief;  and  as  we  have  belief  which  tells  us  that 
we  know,  and  without  which  we  could  not  be  assured  of  the 
truth  of  our  knowledge,  so  we  have,  and  are  warranted  in 
having,  beliefs  beyond  our  knowledge ;  beliefs  respecting  the 
unconditioned,  respecting  that  which  is  in  itself  unknowable." 

How  little  we  are  competent  to  decide  on  the  metaphysic 
of  a  personal  union,  in  which  an  infinite  person  takes  to  itself 
a  human  nature,  is  manifest  when  we  attempt  the  metaphysic 
of  that  personal  union  ^vith  which  we  are  most  familiar  —  the 
union  of  soul  and  body  in  man.  In  our  own  persons,  we  are 
not  always,  perhaps  are  never,  able  to  draw  the  line  between 
what  the  body  does  through  the  soul,  and  what  the  soul  does 
by  the  body.  In  ourselves  there  is  a  shadow  of  the  marvel  of 
the  Communicatio  idiomatum.  The  soul  is  not  mechanically, 
nor  merely  organically,  united  with  the  body,  but  is  incarnate, 
"  made  flesh."  It  takes  the  body  into  personal  unity  with  it, 
so  that  henceforth  there  is  a  real  fellowship  of  properties. 
What  the  soul  has  per  se,  the  body  has  through  the  soul  in 
the  personal  union.  There  is  a  real  conjoint  possession  of 
powers  by  body  and  soul  in  the  one  human  person.  The  body 
has  real  properties,  by  means  of  the  union  with  spirit,  which 
it  could  not  have  as  mere  matter.     That  which  is  j^er-  se  but 

Feiiowsin  of  A^sb ,  is,  lu  thc  pcrsoual  union,  body  ;  and  body  is 
Properties  in  the  au  integral  part  of  the  person  of  man.  It  receives 
i.urn.n  p.r.o„.      pgj.g^^^|i^^,  f^.^^-^-^  ^^q  Spirit  —  uot   that  the   spirit 

parts  with  its  personality  so  as  in  any  sense  to  lose  it,  nor  that 
the  body  receives  it  intrinsically,  so  as  in  any  sense  to  hold  it 
apart  from  the  spirit,  but  that  this  one  personality,  essentially 
inhering  in  the  spirit,  now  pertains  to  the  complex  being  man  ; 
two  natures  share  in  one  personality,  the  one  by  intrinsic  pos- 

*  Note  A,  iu  Reed,  pp.  l-ii^y  7-jO. 


FELLOWSHIP  OF  PROPERTIES.  805 

session,  the  other  by  participation  resulting  from  the  unity; 
so  that  henceforth  no  act  or  suffering  of  the  body  is  without 
the  soul,  no  act  or  passion  of  the  soul  is  without  the  body  ;  all 
act^  and  passions  are  personal,  pertaining  to  the  whole  man. 
Though  this  or  that  be  relatively  according  to  one  or  other 
nature,  it  is  not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other:  "My  soul 
cleaveth  to  the  dust  "  and  "  My  flesh  crieth  out  for  the  living 
God.'"'  The  human  body  has  actual  properties,  in  virtue  of  its 
union  with  spirit,  w^iich  are  utterly  different  from  and  beyond 
what  matter,  merely  as  matter,  can  possibly  have.  Because 
this  great  truth  has  been  ignored,  philosophy  stands  helpless 
before  the  question,  How  the  soul  can  receive  impressions  by 
the  bod}^  ?  The  attempts  of  the  greatest  of  thinkers  to  solve 
this  problem  seem  more  like  burlesques,  than  serious  eftbrts. 
The  personal  unity  of  man  alone  solves  the  mystery.  l^To  theory 
but  this  can  meet  the  facts  of  our  being.  None  but  this  can 
avoid  the  two  shoals  of  Absolute  Idealism  and  Absolute  Ma- 
terialism. "  The  soul,"  says  Tertullian,*  "  is  not,  by  itself, 
man,  nor  is  the  flesh,  without  the  soul,  man.  Man  is,  as  it 
w^ere,  the  clasp  of  two  conjoined  substances."  "  Man,"  says  a 
work  attributed  to  Augustine,  though  evidently,  in  part,  of 
later  date,t  "  consists  of  two  substances,  soul  and  flesh :  the  soul 
with  reason,  the  flesh  with  its  senses,  which  senses,  however,  the 
flesh  does  not  put  into  activity  (movet),  without  the  fellowship 
(societate)  of  the  soul."  "  The  soul,"  says  the  same  ancient 
book,  J  "  is  so  united  to  the  flesh,  that  it  is  one  person  with  the 
flesh.  Of  God  as  author,  soul  and  flesh  become  one  individual, 
one  man :  hence,  what  is  proper  to  each  nature  remaining  safe, 
that  is  added  to  the  flesh,  which  is  of  the  soul,  and  that  is 
added  to  the  soul,  which  is  of  the  flesh  :  according  to  the  unity 
of  person,  not  according  to  the  diversity  of  nature.  What, 
therefore,  is  proper  to  each,  is  common  to  both ;  proper  ac- 
cording to  nature,  common  according  to  person." 

But  if  the  body  assumed  by  the  soul  has  a  new-  range  of 
properties,  w^hich  give  it  a  dependent  exaltation,  how  much 
more  may  we  expect  that  when  these  conjoint  natures,  form- 

*De  Resurrect.  Carnis.  f  De  Spirit,  et  Anim.,  C.  III. 

I  Augustiui  Opera,  VI.,  App.  810.     Liber  de  Spirit,  et  Anima.,  C.  XLI. 


806  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION, 

iiig  a  human  nature,  are  taken  into  personal  union  with  the 
divine,  there  shall  be  a  real  personal  participation  by  that 
human  nature  in  the  attributes  of  the  divine.  And  if  we  may 
thus  argue  from  the  body  that  is,  the  natural  body,  how 
greatly  is  the  argument  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  this  same 
body,  in  its  exalted  attributes,  as  glorified  at  the  resurrection, 
is  so  perfect  an  organ  of  the  spiritual,  so  conformed  to  the 
spiritual  in  its  unity,  that  St.  Paul  calls  it  "  spiritual  body." 
Xow  Christ's  body  is  a  spiritual  body,  and,  by  means  of  the 
Spirit  w^hose  organ  it  is,  exercises  spiritual  functions ;  Christ's 
l)ody  is  a  divine  body  by  means  of  the  divine  person  it  incar- 
nates, and  through  that  person  exercises  divine  powers.  A 
''  spiritual  body  "  is  not  a  spirit  which  is  a  body,  nor  a  body 
which  is  a  spirit,  but  a  true  body,  so  pure,  so  exalted  in  its 
properties  and  in  its  glory,  that  it  is  more  like  our  present  con- 
ceptions of  spirit  than  it  is  like  ordinary  matter,  and  is  thereby 
litted  to  be  the  absolute  organ  of  the  spirit.  If  we  can  limit 
the  properties  of  a  spiritual  body  by  what  we  think  w^e  know 
of  a  natural  body,  the  whole  representation  of  the  apostle  is 
made  void.  "It  doth  not  yet  appear  [is  not  yet  manifested] 
what  we  shall  be,"  but  it  is  most  certain  that  our  conceptions 
of  it  are  far  more  likely  to  fall  below  the  truth  than  to  rise 
above  it. 

It  becomes  us  then  to  be  modest  in  our  affirmation  as  to 
what  it  is  possible  for  God  to  do  even  with  our  natural  bodies. 
]^Iuch  more  should  we  be  modest  in  affirming  what  may  be  the 
possibilities  of  a  body  forming  one  part  of  a  divine  person. 
Let  us  acknowledge  that  we  can  no  more  comprehend  how  a 
spirit,  even  God  himself,  should  be  entire  in  more  than  one 
place  at  one  time,  than  we  can  conceive  of  a  body  thus  present. 
All  thinkers  acknowledge  that  in  the  actual  conception,  the 
definite  framing  to  the  mind  of  the  presence  alike  of  body  or 
spirit,  there  is  an  invincible  necessity  of  connecting  locality 
with  it.  Now  the  presence  of  spirit  demonstrates  that  pres- 
ence and  locality  are  neither  identical  nor  inseparable  ;  and  if 
the  argument,  that  they  seem  so,  is  demonstrative  as  to  body, 
it  is  equally  so  as  to  spirit ;  but  if  it  be  granted  tliat  this  seem- 
ing identity  is  false  as  regards  spirit,  then  it  may  be  false  as 


TR  A  NS  UB  S  TA  NT  I A  TI 0  K.  807 

regards  body.  Philosophy  never  has  determined  what  space 
is  —  never  has  determined  that  it  has  an  actual  beinfi;  —  hut  be 
space  what  it  may,  the  fact  that  our  own  souls  are  in  our 
bodies,  yet  illocal,  shows  that  there  is  no  contradiction  in  the 
ideas  of  being  in  space,  in  locality,  yet  not  having  locality 
in  it. 

While,  as  regards  the  divine  and  human  natures  of  Christ, 
we  can,  in  both  cases,  define  the  general  kind  of  presence,  we 
cannot  define  in  either  the  specific  mode.  It  is  so  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity :  we  define  the  general  kind  of  unity  and 
threefoldness,  but  not  the  mode.  We  may  thoroughly  know 
up  to  a  certain  point  what  a  thing  is  not,  and  yet  be  wholly 
ignorant  beyond  a  certain  other  point  what  it  is.  We  may 
know  that  a  distant  object  is  not  a  house,  not  a  man,  not  a 
mountain,  but  be  wholly  ignorant  what  it  is,  or  we  may  know 
what  it  is  without  knowing  how  it  is.  In  the  great  mysteries 
we  can  know  that  they  are  not  this  or  that,  We  may  know 
further,  to  a  certain  extent,  lohat  they  are  (their  kind,)  but  the 
7node  of  their  being  is  excluded  from  our  knowledge  by  the 
fact  that  they  are  mysteries.  If  we  knew  that,  they  would 
be  mysteries  no  more. 

1^0 w  the  whole  objection  to  the  presence  of  Christ's  body 
assumes  a  certain  "  quo  modo'^ — starts  with  the  assumption 
that  Christ's  body  is  limited  as  ours  is,  and  that  our  doctrine 
assumes  that  it  is  present  in  mode  and  kind  as  ours  is  —  both 
assumptions  being  absolutely  false.  Between  the  kind  of  pres- 
ence which  Christ's  body  has  in  the  Supper  and  that  which 
our  body  has  in  the  world,  there  is  a  parallel  in  some  part,  but 
not  in  all ;  but  as  to  the  mode,  there  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  no 
parallel  whatever. 

VI.  There  are  several  questions  in  the  metaphysic  of  this  doc- 
trine which  are  entirely  distinct,  yet  are  often  confounded  ;  and 
as  a  result  of  this  confusion,  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence  is 
thought  to  be  encumbered  with  the  same  metaphysical  contra- 
dictions as  the  figment  of  transubstantiation. 

The  first  question  is,  do  attributes,  qualities,  or  accidents  inhere 
in  substance  ?  To  this  the  true  reply  is.  They  do.  l^o  abstract 
attribute,  quality,  or  accident  can  have  an  objective  existence. 


808  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

Second.  Is  the  reason  of  quality  in  the  substance,  so  that 
essentially  different  qualities  prove  essentially  different  sub- 
stances, and  essentially  different  substances  must  have  essen- 
tially different  qualities  ?     The  answer  is  affirmative. 

Third.  Does  the  character  of  a  quality,  as  determined  by  the 
substance,  have  a  real  correspondence  with  the  phenomenon  in 
which  the  human  mind  is  cognizant  of  the  quality?  The 
answer  is.  Yes. 

If  these  answers  be  tenable,  then  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
Btantiation  goes  to  the  ground  ;  for  it  assumes  that  the  quali- 
ties of  bread  and  wine  do  not  inhere  in  bread  and  wine,  and 
may  consequently  exist  abstractly  from  bread  and  wine:  not 
only  that  a  something  which  is  not  bread  and  wine  may  have 
all  their  qualities,  but  that  a  nothing.,  a  non-essence.,  may  have 
all  their  qualities.  This  theory,  which  is  practically  so  materi- 
VI.  Objection: that  alizlug,  ruus  out  spcculativcly  into  nihilism.  It  as- 
the  siin.e  line  of  suuics  that  thc  rcason  of  the  qualities  of  bread  and 
uSr^forTrar.  wiuc  Is  uot  lu  the  substaucc  of  bread  and  w^ine  ; 
substantiation.  ^^^^  ^j-^^^^  conscquently,  the  connection  is  purely 
arbitrary  ;  that  the  reason  of  the  qualities  of  body  and  blood 
is  not  in  the  substance  or  nature  of  body  and  blood,  and  that 
consequently  there  is  no  reason  in  the  essential  nature  of  things 
w^hy  all  bread  should  not  have  the  qualities  of  human  body  and 
all  body  the  qualities  of  bread.  If  the  seeming  loaf  of  bread 
may  be  Christ's  body  really,  the  seeming  body  of  Christ  might 
have  been  really  a  loaf  of  bread.  We  may  be  in  a  w^orld  in 
which  nothing  that  seems  is  in  correspondence  with  what  is. 
The  innocent  family  which  thinks  that  it  is  eating  bread  is 
indulo-ino-  in  cannibalism,  and  some  unfortunate  wretch  is  hung 
on  supposition  of  his  having  committed  murder,  when,  in  fact, 
what  he  plunged  his  knife  into  was  but  a  loaf  of  bread,  clothed 
with  the  accidents  of  a  man.  Transubstantiation  unsettles 
the  entire  ground  of  belief  and  thought,  and  conflicts  with  the 
veracity  of  God  in  nature,  as  it  does  with  Ilis  testimony  in 
His  Word. 

A  little  reflection  will  show  that  not  one  of  these  metaphys- 
ical difficulties  connects  itself  with  the  doctrine  of  rhe  true 
sacramental    presence.      It   grants    that  all  the  attributes  of 


SUBSTANCE   AND    CONDITION.  809 

bread  inhere  in  the  bread,  and  all  the  attributes  of  Christ's 
body  inhere  in  His  body :  t'le  reason  of  this  inherence  is  not 
arbitrary  ;  but  bread  has  its  qualities  because  it  is  bread,  and 
body  has  its  qualities  because  it  is  body ;  bread  cannot  have 
the  qualities  of  body  because  it  is  not  body,  and  body  cannot 
have  the  qualities  of  bread  because  it  is  not  bread  ;  and  the 
phenomena  by  which  the  nnind  recognizes  the  presence  of  l^read 
and  body  correspond  with  the  qualities  of  each,  so  that  the  real 
'phenomenal  evidences  of  bread  are  proofs  of  true  bread,  and  the 
phenomenal  evidences  of  body  are  proofs  of  true  body.  So  far, 
then,  it  is  clear  that  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence  is  in 
perfect  accord  with  the  sound  metaphysic  with  which  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation  conflicts.  But  it  will  be  urged  that 
the  difficulty  remains  that  the  phenomenal  evidences  of  the 
presence  of  true  body  are  wanting  in  the  Supper,  and  that  our 
doctrine  is  so  far  in  conflict  w^ith  the  testimony  of  the  senses., 
equally  with  the  Romish.  This  difficulty,  which  has  often 
been  triumphantly  urged,  has  really  no  force.  The  senses 
may  be  competent  to  decide  on  the  presence  and  reality  of 
what  is  ofl'ered  to  them,  but  may  be  incompetent  to  decide 
whether  a  thing  is  really  present,  which  does  not  come  within 
their  sphere.  That  I  see  the  furniture  in  my  room  is  proof 
that  there  is  furniture  there ;  but  that  I  do  not  see  the  air  in 
my  room  is  no  proof  that  air  is  not  there.  That  I  see  the 
bread  in  the  Supper  is  proof  that  bread  is  there ;  but  that  I  do 
not  see  the  body  is  no  proof  that  the  body  is  not  there.  But, 
says  the  objector,  if  the  body  be  there,  it  must  be  clothed  with 
the  essential  attributes  of  body,  such  as  visibility  and  tano-i- 
bility.  You  would  see  it  and  touch  it,  if  it  were  there,  on 
your  own  principles  that  properties  inhere  in  substance.  The 
theological  answer  to  this  is,  that  this  objection  assumes  the 
natural  presence  of  a  natural  body  per  se,  while  the  doctrine 
to  which  it  professes  to  be  an  objection  is,  that  there  is  a 
supernatural  presence  of  a  supernatural  body  through  the 
divine,  with  which  it  is  one  person.  The  metaphysical  answer 
is,  that  though  the  properties  which  become  known  phenome- 
nally, inhere  in  substance,  the  same  substance,  under  different 
conditions,  exhibits  different  properties.     I  take  a  compound 


810  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

substance  which  we  call  ice  :  it  is  visible,  tangible,  hard,  and 
very  cold.     If  it  is  struck,  it  returns  a  sound.    It  will  not  take 
fire,  and  puts  out  fire,  and  occupies  in  space  a  few  inches.     It 
melts  and  flows,  and  becomes  warm  ;  it  occupies  less  space  ;  it 
still  will  not  take  fire,  but  puts  out  fire  —  still  visible,  still 
tangible,   still   audible   on   a   stroke,   and   can   be   tasted.     I 
increase  its  temperature  to   a   certain  point,  and  it  becomes 
invisible,  intangible,  intensely  hot,  inaudible  ;  its  volume  has  in- 
creased to  between  sixteen  hundred  and  seventeen  hundred  cubic 
inches  for  every  cubic  inch  as  water.     From  its  passivity  it 
has  become  a  force  of  the  most  tremendous  potency,  rivalling 
in  its  awful  energy  the  lightning  and  the  earthquake.     The 
developed  qualities  of  the  substance  which  we  first  saw  as  ice, 
bear  thousands  swiftly  over  land  and  water,  or,  bursting  their 
barriers,  carry  death  and  destruction  w^th  them.     But  science 
takes  this  substance  and  divides  it  into  its  elements.     One  of 
these  is  hydrogen.     The  heavy  mass   of  ice  has  yielded  the 
lightest  of  all  known  bodies ;  the  extinguisher  of  combustion 
has  given  a  substance  of  high  inflammability  ;  the  hard  has 
yielded  one  of  the  few  gases  which  have  never  been  liquefied. 
The  other  element,  oxygen,  is  also  one  of  the  gases  which  have 
never  been  liquefied.     The  liquid  of  the  world  is  produced  by 
the  union  of  two  substances  which  cannot  themselves  be  lique- 
fied.    The  ice  has  no  magnetic  power,  the  oxygen  has.     Take 
the  oxygen  of  our  original  lump  of  ice,  and  introduce  the  hydro- 
gen of  the  same  lump  into  it  in  a  stream,  and  the  two  elements 
that  quenched  flame  sustain  it ;  or  bring  them  together  in  a  mass, 
and  apply  fire  to  them,  and  the  union  is  one  in  which  a  terrific 
explosion  is  followed  b}^  the  reproduction  of  the  water  which, 
under  the  necessary  conditions,  may  become  ice  again.     The 
circle  has  been  run.     Now  if,  under  the  changed  conditions  of 
nature,  such  marvellous  phenomenal  changes  may  take  place 
in  connection  with  the  elements,  with  no  change  in  their  sub- 
stance, who  can  say  how  far  other  changed  conditions  of  na- 
ture may  carry  other  substances  in  tlie  sphere  of  nature?     Yet 
more,  who  can  say  what  the  changed  conditions  in  the  suprem- 
est  sphere   of  omnipotence   may    eftect  phenomenally  in   the 
sphere  even  of  the  natural,  and,  a  fortiori^  in  the  sphere  of  the 


OUR  LORD'S  DECLARATIONS.  811 

supernatural?  Qualities  inhere  in  substance;  but  substance, 
under  changed  conditions.,  may  put  forth  new  qualities,  or  ivith- 
draw  all  the  qualities  that  are  objects  of  sense.  That  which 
can  be  seen,  handled,  and  felt  as  a  body,  we  may  justly  believe 
is  a  body ;  but  that  same  body  under  different  conditions.,  and 
at  the  will  of  Him  it  incarnates,  may  be  present,  yet  neither  be 
seen  nor  handled. 

It  is  not  logical  to  say,  because  what  I  see  is  matter,  what  I 
do  not  see  is  not  matter.  The  senses  only  show  us  what  is,  not 
what  must  be.  "  What  is  visible  is  matter,"  is  logical :  ''  what 
is  matter  is  visible,"  is  sophistry.  "  What  bears  all  the  tests 
to  which  the  senses  can  subject  a  true  body  is  a  true  body,"  is 
logical :  "  what  is  a  true  body  must  be  subject  to  all  the  tests 
of  the  senses,"  is  sophistry.  What  bore  all  the  tests  of  all  the 
senses,  as  water,  was  fairly  proved  to  be  such  ;  but  the  same 
water  passed  into  conditions  in  which  it  was  attested  by  none 
of  the  senses,  yet  was  none  the  less  water.  Hence  our  senses 
can  and  do  prove  that  there  is  bread  and  wine  in  the  Supper ; 
but  they  do  not  and  cannot  prove  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  not  there.  The  argument  of  the  senses  is  conclu- 
sive against  transubstantiation,  but  presents  nothing  whatever 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence. 

VII.  A  seventh  objection  often  urged,  different  in  form  from 
some  of  the  others,  yet  essentially  one  with  them,  is,  that 
"Jesus  declares  that  He  will  leave  the  world,  and  has  left  the 
world;  therefore  He  is  not  present  at  His  Supper."  To  this 
we  answer,  First.,  that  if  the  expressions  which  speak  of  the 
absence  of  Jesus  from  the  world  are  to  be  pressed  without 
the  Scriptural  limitations  as  to  the  nature  of  His  absence, 
it  would  follow  that  His  divine  nature  is  also  vii.  onr  Lord's 
absent ;  for  these  expressions,  be  their  force  what  fj^t'^'i'i^'leTve  *the 
it  may,  always  refer  to  his  whole  person.  He  never  woiia. 
says.  My  body  or  My  human  nature  will  go  away,  but  "  I  go 
away."  ivTow  the  "  I  "  expresses  the  person  ;  if,  therefore,  the 
phrases  are  to  be  urged  in  such  fashion  as  to  preclude  any  sort 
of  presence  of  His  human  nature,  they  will  equally  preclude 
any  sort  of  presence  of  His  divinity.  Co-presence,  that  is,  in- 
separable conjunction  of  the  two  elements  of  a  person,  is  not 


812  CONSERVATIVE    REFORMATIOX. 

only  an  essential  of  persouality,  but  it  is  the  primary  essential 
element  —  such  an  element  as  is  presupposed  in  every  other, 
and  without  which  the  personal  union  could  not  exist.  It  is 
the  minimum,  not  the  maximum ;  the  first,  not  the  last,  de- 
mand of  personality.  But  the  objector  admits  that  Christ  is 
present  according  to  His  divinity,  and  must,  therefore,  admit 
that  He  is  present  according  to  His  humanity.  Secondly.  Our 
Lord,  when  He  speaks  of  His  absence,  makes  it  antithetical, 
not  to  His  essential  presence,  but  simply  to  one  kind  of  that 
presence,  to  w^it,  the  continually  visible  or  purely  natural.  So 
strongly  is  this  the  case,  that  after  His  resurrection,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that,  though  yet  visibly  upon  earth,  He  was  even 
then  no  longer  in  the  old  relations.  He  speaks  of  Himself  as 
in  some  sense  not  present  with  them :  ''  These  are  the  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you  lohile  I  teas  yet  idth  you.''  (Luke  xxiv. 
44.)  Here  our  Lord,  after  giving  the  strongest  proof  that  He 
was  then  present  bodily,  expressly,  over  against  a  mere  presence 
of  His  spirit,  or  disembodied  soul,  declares,  at  the  same  time, 
that  He  is  in  some  sense  no  longer  with  them  ;  that  is,  after 
the  former  manner,  and  in  the  old  relations.  Already,  though 
on  earth,  he  had  relatively  left  them.  He  thus  teaches  us  that 
there  may  be  an  absence,  even  with  the  most  positive  tokens 
of  natural  presence,  as  there  may  be  a  presence,  with  the  most 
positive  tokens  of  natural  absence.  The  incarnate  Son  of  God 
is  not  excluded  in  the  words,  "  I  will  never  leave  thee,  nor  for- 
sake thee."  He  conforms  to  his  own  description  of  the  good 
shepherd,  as  one  who  does  not  leave  the  sheep.  (John  x.  12.) 
When  He  says,  "  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come 
into  the  world,"  does  it  mean  that  he  so  came  forth  from  the 
Father  as  no  more  to  be  present  with  Him,  and  so  came  into 
the^ world  as  to  be  absent  from  heaven  (that  Son  of  man  Avho 
"  is  in  heaven,"  John  iii.  13)  ?  If  it  does  not,  then,  when  He 
adds,  "  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father,"  it  does  not 
mean  that  He  so  leaves  the  world  as  to  be  no  more  present  in 
it,  and  so  goes  to  the  Father  as  to  be  absent  from  His  Church. 
(John  xvi.  28.)  In  a  word,  all  the  declarations  in  regard  to 
Chnsrs   absence   are   qualified  by  the   expressed  or   implied 


OITR   LORD'S  DECLARATION'S.  813 

fact  that  the  al)sence  is  after  a  certain  kind  or  mode  only  —  a 
relative  absence,  not  a  8ul)stantial  or  aljsolute  one.  There  is  a 
relative  leaving  in  human  relations.  "  A  man  sludl  leave 
his  father  and  mother,  and  cleave  to  his  wife,"  and  yet  he 
may  remain  under  their  roof;  he  leaves  them  relatively,  in 
rising  into  the  new  relation.  As  representatives  of  the 
supremest  domestic  obligation,  the  parents  are  left;  for  his 
supremest  domestic  obligation  is  now  to  his  wife.  Hence,  our 
Lord  does  not  make  the  antithesis  he  shall  leave  parents,  and 
go  to  his  wife,  but  he  shall  leave  father  and  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  to  his  Avife.  A  pastor  ma}^  leave  a  congregation,  as 
pastor,  and  yet  remain  in  it  as  a  member.  A  merchant  may 
leave  a  firm,  yet  retain  the  room  he  had  in  their  building.  But 
these  cases  are  not  simply  parallel.  They  illustrate  the  argument 
a  fortiori. 

The  presence  of  God  is  regarded  either  as  substantial  or  as 
operative  and  phenomenal.  The  substantial  may  exist  without 
the  phenomenal ;  the  phenomenal  cannot  exist  without  the 
substantial.  God's  substantial  presence  is  alike  everywhere  — 
as  complete  in  the  lowest  depths  of  hell  as  in  the  highest  glory 
of  heaven ;  as  perfect  in  the  foulest  den  of  heathen  orgies  as 
in  the  assembly  of  saints,  or  on  the  throne  before  which  sera- 
phim veil  their  faces.  But  His  phenomenal  presence  varies 
in  degrees.  "  Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven,"  marks  His 
purest  phenomenal  presence,  as  making  that  Home  to  which 
our  hearts  aspire.  As  there  is  phenomenal  presence,  so  is  there 
phenomenal  absence  ;  hence,  God  himself  is  frequently  repre- 
sented in  Scripture  as  withdrawing  Himself,  and  as  absent, 
though,  in  His  essence.  He  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  absent  from 
any  part  of  the  Universe.  The  absence  of  God  is,  so  to  speak, 
a  relative  absence,  a  phenomenal  absence  ;  the  tokens  of  Provi- 
dence or  grace  by  which  this  presence  was  actualized,  not  only 
to  faith,  but  even  to  experience,  are  withdrawn.  So  the  natu- 
ral phenomenal  token's  of  the  presence  of  the  undivided  Christ 
are  withdrawn,  yet  is  He  substantially  still  present,  and  as  thus 
present  is  operative  in  the  supernatural  phenomena  of  His 
grace. 

Thirdly.  Just  as  explicitly  as  Christ,  the  whole  Christ,  is  said 


814  COXSERTATIVE   REFORMATIOK. 

to  be  absent,  is  He  affirmed  to  be  present :  "  AVhere  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  nay  name,  there  am  I  in  the 
midst  of  them."  (Matt,  xviii.  20.)  "  Lo,  I  am  Avith  you  alway,— 
all  the  days,  —  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt,  xxviii. 
20.)  "  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words :  and  my 
Father  will  love  him,  and  we  icill  come  unto  him,  and  make 
our  abode  with  him."  (John  xiv.  23.)  The  light  of  ITis  pres- 
ence shone  around  Saul,  and  the  words  of  His  voice  fell  upon 
Saul's  ear.  (Acts  ix.  4-7  ;  xxii.  6-11.)  "  The  night  following  " 
Paul's  appearing  before  the  council,  "  the  Lord  stood  by  him,  and 
said,  Be  of  good  cheer,  Paul,  for  as  thou  hast  testified  of  me 
in  Jerusalem,  so  must  thou  bear  witness  also  at  Pome."  (Acts 
xxiii.  11.)  Christ  "iilleth  all  in  all."  (Eph.i.  23.)  He  is  "  in  M^ 
midst  of  the  seven  candlesticks  ;  walketh  in  the  midst  of  them  ; 
holdeth  the  seven  stars  in  His  right  hand ;  and  the  seven  can- 
dlesticks are  the  seven  churches,  and  the  seven  stars  are  the 
angels  of  the  seven  churches."  (Pev.  i.  13  ;  ii.  20  ;  iii.  1.)  The 
glory  of  Christ  ruling  without  vicars  had  been  seen  even  by 
the  Old  Testament  saints,  and  Jehovah  had  said  to  David's 
son,  who  was  David's  Lord,  "  Pule  thou  in  the  midst  of  thine 
enemies."  (Psalm  ex.  2.) 

If,  then,  it  be  logical  to  say  the  Scripture  declares  He  is 
gone,  therefore  He  is  not  here,  it  is  equally  logical  to  say  the 
Scripture  affirms  that  He  is  here,  therefore  He  is  not  gone. 
Both  are  meant,  relatively,  and  both  are  true,  relatively.  Both 
are  equally  true  in  the  sense,  and  with  the  limitation  which 
Scripture  gives  to  both  ;  both  are  untrue  in  the  sense  which  a 
perverse  reason  forces  upon  them.  It  is  true  both  that  Christ 
is  gone,  and  that  He  is  here ;  he  is  gone,  phenomenally.  He  is 
here,  substantially.  It  is  false  that  Christ  is  either  gone  or 
here,  as  the  carnal  mind  defines  His  presence  or  His  absence. 
Absent  in  one  sense,  or  respect.  He  is  present  in  another ;  both 
senses  being  equally  real,  though  belonging  to  different  spheres 
of  reality.  The  one  belongs  to  the  reality  of  the  natural,  in 
the  sphere  of  the  senses;  the  other  belongs  to  the  reality  of  the 
supernatural  in  the  sphere  of  faith. 

Fourthly,  If  it  be  urged  that  Christ  "-ascended  into  heaven^'' 
therefore  He  is  not  on  earth,  we  reply,  He  not  only  has  ascended 


OUR   LORD'S  DECLARATIONS.  815 

into  heaven,  but,  according  to  the  apostle,  He  has  passed  through 
the  heavens  (Ileb.  iv.  14),*  "  is  made  higlier  than  the  heavens" 
(Ileb.  vii.  26),  and  has  "  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens '' 
(Eph.  iv.  10) ;  but,  with  the  apostle,  we  add,  not  that  lie  may 
desert  all  things,  or  be  absent  from  them,  but  "that  He  might 
fill  all  things."  One  of  the  grandest  passages  in  Ciirysostom  f 
opens  the  true  sense  of  these  words  :  "  Christ  (at  His  Ascension) 
offered  the  first  fruits  of  our  nature  to  the  Father  ;  and,  in  the 
Father's  eye,  because  of  the  glory  of  Him  who  offered,  and  the 
purity  of  the  ofiering,  the  gift  was  so  admirable  that  He  received 
it  with  His  own  hands,  and  placed  it  next  to  Himself,  and  said  : 
'  Sit  Thou  at  My  right  hand.'  But  to  which  nature  did  God  say, 
'  Sit  Thou  at  My  right  hand  ? '  To  that  very  nature  which 
heard  the  words,  '  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt 
return.'  Was  it  not  enough  for  that  nature  to  pass  beyond  the 
heavens?  Was  it  not  enough  for  it  to  stand  with  angels? 
Was  not  such  a  glory  ineffable  ?  But  it  passed  beyond  angels, 
left  archangels  behind  it,  passed  beyond  the  cherubim,  went 
up  high  over  the  seraphim,  speeded  past  the  Principalities,  nor 
stood  still  till  it  took  possession  of  the  Throne  of  the  Lord. 
Seest  thou  not  what  lieth  between  mid-heaven  and  earth  ?  Or, 
rather,  let  us  begin  at  the  lowest  part.  Seest  thou  not  what 
is  the  space  between  hell  (adou)  and  earth,  and  from  earth  to 
heaven,  and  from  heaven  to  the  upper  heaven,  and  from  that 
to  angels,  from  them  to  archangels,  from  them  to  the  powers 
above,  from  them  to  the  very  Throne  of  the  King  ?  Through 
this  whole  space  and  height.  He  hath  carried  our  nature." 
CKcuMENius  :  "  With  His  unclothed  Divinity  He,  of  old,  filled 
all  things ;  but,  incarnate,  he  descended  and  ascended,  that 
He  might  fill  all  things  according  to  His  flesh  (meta  sarkos)." 
Theophylact  :  "  As  before  He  had  filled  up  all  things  by  His 
divinity,  He  might  now  fill  all  things,  by  rule  and  operation,  in 
His  flesh."  —  Grotius  :  "  That  is  above  the  air  and  ether,  which 

*This  is  the  correct  rendering  of  the  passage.  So  the  Vulgate  and  Arabic: 
penetravit  Coelos.  (The  /Ethiopic  makes  it  a  passing  through  the  heavens,  in  His 
coming  into  the  world.)  Von  Meyer:  Durch  die  Ilimmel  gegangen.  Stolz : 
gedrungen.  Allioli,  Gossner :  die  Himmel  durchdrungen.  De  Wette  :  hindurch- 
gegangen.    So  McKnight,  Bible  Union,  Noyes,  Alford. 

f  In  Ascens.  D.  N.  Jesu  Christi.     Opera,  11.  584. 


816  COKSERVATIVE   REFORMATIOX. 

region  is  called  the  third  heaven,  and  the  heaven  of  heavens,  and 
in  the  plural  'heavens,'  and  by  pre-eminence  'heaven,'  Acts  ii. 
34  ;  i.  10  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  47  ;  Eph.  vi.  9."  Many  of  the  Calvinistic 
divines  appeal  to  this  passage  as  proving  the  oninipresence  of 
Christ,  and,  by  consequence,  His  Deity. 

But  if  Christ  has  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens.  He  has 
ascended  according  to  the  body.     But  if  the  body  of  Christ 
has  ascended  far  above  all  heavens,  by  the  processes  of  natural 
motion,  it  must  have  passed  with  a  rapidity  to  which  that  of 
light  is  sluggish,  and  must  have  been  capable  of  enduring  pro- 
cesses which  would  not  only  have  destroyed,  but  utterly  dissi- 
pated, a   natural  body.     But  when  a  theory  which  calls  in 
nature  to  its  aid  is  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  a  human 
body,  fettered  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  natural  presence,  is  hur- 
ried at  a  rate  to  which  that  of  nearly  twelve  millions  of  miles 
in  a  minute  is   slowness  itself,  it  asks  for  a  trust  in  nature, 
what  is  harder  to  the  mind  than  the  most  extreme  demands 
of  the  supernatural.     The  nearest  of  the  fixed  stars,  whose 
distance  has  yet  been  measured,  is  about  twenty  billions  of 
miles  from  us,  and  requires  three  and  a  third  years  for  its  light 
to  reach  us.     "It  has  been  considered  probable,  from  recon- 
dite investigations,  that  the  average  distance  of  a  star  of  the 
first  magnitude  from  the  earth  is  986,000  radii  of  our  annual 
orbit,  a  distance  which  light  vrould  require  15i  years  to  tra- 
verse ;  and,  further,  that  the  average  distance  of  a  star  of  the 
sixth  magnitude  (the  smallest  distinctly  seen  without  a  tele- 
scope) is  7,600,000  times  the   same  unit,  to  traverse  which, 
light,  with  its  prodigious  velocity,  would  occupy  more  than 
120  years.     If,  then,  the  distances  of  the  majority  of  stars 
visible  to  the  naked  eye  are  so  enormously  great,  how  are  we 
to  estimate  our  distance  from  those  minute  points  of  light  dis- 
cernible only  in  powerful  telescopes?     The  conclusion  is  forced 
upon  us  that  we  do  not  see  them   as  they  appeared  within  a 
few  years,  or  even  during  the  lifetime  of  man,  but  with  the 
rays  which   proceeded  from  them  several  thousands  of  years 
ago."  *     "  The  distance  of  a  star  whose  parallax  is  1"  is  about 
twenty  trillions  of  English  miles.     A  spider's  thread  before  the 

*iliud's  Astronomy,  quoted  iu  Chambers's  Encyclopaedia.     Article  :  Stars. 


OUR  LORD'S  DECLARATIONS.  817 

eye  of  a  spectator,  at  the  same  distance,  would  sufRce  to  cancel 
the  orbit  of  the  earth ;  and  the  breadth  of  a  hair  would  blot 
out  the  whole  planetary  system.  But  a  star  having  this  par- 
allax is  at  a  moderate  distance  in  comparison  of  innumerable 
others,  in  which  no  parallactic  motion  whatever  can  be  distin- 
guished. Supposing  the  distance  of  one  of  them  to  be  only  a 
thousand  times  greater,  a  ray  of  light  darted  from  it  would 
travel  between  3,000  and  4,000  years  before  it  reached  the 
earth  ;  and  if  the  star  were  annihilated  by  any  sudden  convul- 
sion, it  would  appear  to  shine  in  its  proper  place  during  that 
immense  period  after  it  had  been  extinguished  from  the  face 
of  the  heavens.  Pursuing  speculations  of  this  kind,  we  may 
conceive,  with  Huygens,  that  it  is  not  impossible  that  there 
may  exist  stars  placed  at  such  enormous  distances  that  their 
light  has  not  yet  reached  the  earth  since  their  creation."  * 

]N'ow,  if  the  presence  of  Christ  is  merely  local,  if  He  is  above 
all  heavens  only  by  confinement  to  one  place,  His  ascension  to 
this  one  place  involves  something  which  may  claim  to  be  natu- 
ral, but  which  is  really  super-supernatural.  If  the  doctrine 
of  the  supernatural  invites  faith,  the  figment  of  the  super- 
supernatural  demands  credulity.  Calvin  interprets  "  above  all 
heavens "  as  meaning  "  beyond  this  created  universe.  The 
heaven  in  which  Christ  is,  is  a  place  above  all  the  spheres.  .  .  . 
Christ  is  distant  from  us  by  interval  of  space  .  .  .  for  when 
it  is  said  above  all  the  heavens,  it  involves  a  distance  beyond 
that  of  the  circumference  beneath  sun  and  stars,  and,  conse- 
quently, beyond  that  of  the  entire  fabric  of  the  visible  Uni- 
verse." 

VIII.  Another  shape  which  the  same  objection  takes  is: 
"  Christ  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  therefore  He  is  not 
on  earth."  This  assumes  that  the  "right  hand  of  God  "  is  a 
locality ;  and  to  this  it  is  sufficient  to  reply,  by  asking  the 
question.  If  the  right  hand  of  God  be  a  place,  in  what  place 
is  God's  left  hand?  Where  is  the  place  that  God's  right  hand 
is  notF  If  God's  right  hand  means  place  at  all,  it  means,  not 
one  place,  but  all  place.     If,  moreover,  Christ's  human  nature 

*  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (Eighth  edition),  Art, :  Astronomy,  iv.  81. 
62 


818  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

cannot  be  on  earth,  because  it  sitteth  at  "  God's  right  hand/ 
neither  can  His  "  divine "  nature  be  present,  for  the  same 
reason;  for  Christ  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  His  whole 
VIII.  Objection.  P^rsou,  and  according  to  both  natures.  If  to  sit  at 
Christ  is  atGoa's  God's  Hght  hand  involves  the  limitations  of  local- 
ng  mn  .  .^^^  i\xQ\i  the  diviue  nature  of  Christ  cannot  be  there. 
But  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God  has  no  reference  what- 
ever to  locality.  To  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  a  king  is  a 
Biblical  idiom  for  participation  in  the  office,  prerogatives,  and 
honor  of  a  king.  "  To  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God  "  means, 
therefore,  "  to  be  in  that  condition  of  plenary  divine  glory, 
majesty,  and  dominion  which  belongs  to  God."  We  invert  the 
argument,  therefore:  we  say,  Christ  is  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  therefore  He  is  here.  God  is  not  mutilated  nor  divided ; 
He  is  without  parts  (impartibilis,  Aug.  Conf.,  Art.  I.).  Where- 
ever  God  is.  His  right  hand  is ;  wherever  His  "  right  hand  " 
is,  He  is  ;  therefore  the  "  right  hand  of  God,"  so  far  as  the 
question  of  presence  is  involved,  is  everywhere.  His  throne  is 
as  wide  as  the  Universe !  The  "  hollow  of  His  hand  "  holds 
creation!  He  who  sits  at  God's  right  hand  is  omnipresent, 
just  as  he  who  is  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  an  earthly  mon- 
arch is  "  ipso  facto  "  where  that  monarch  is.  When  Jesus  rose 
from  the  dead.  He  said,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  ; "  but  the  power  of  "  presence  "  is  a  primary 
part,  a  necessary  element  of  all  power  or  omnipotence  ;  that  is, 
omnipresence  and  omnipotence  so  cohere  that  no  being  can 
have  one  of  them  without  having  both  ;  and  as  Jesus  says  this 
power  is  given  to  Him,  it  must  have  been  given  to  Him  as 
man^  for,  as  God,  He  held  it  essentially  and  necessarily.  Jesus 
Christ  our  adorable  Lord  is  not  only  essentially  omnipotent 
and  essentially  omnipresent  as  God,  but  is  j)ersonalhj  omnipo- 
tent and  personally  omnipresent  in  that  human  nature  also 
which  has  been  taken  into  absolute  and  inseparable  unity  with 
the  divine.  All  objections  vanish  in  the  light  of  His  glorious 
and  all-sufficient  person.  That  the  true  and  supernatural 
communion  with  his  Lord  in  His  "Supper"  —  which  is  the 
Christian's  hope — can  ^e,  rests  upon  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head dwelling  in  Christ  bodily ;  that  it  will  /;r,  rests  upon  the 


"/iV,   WITH,   UNDER."  819 

absolute  truth  of  Him  who  cannot  deceive  us.  lie  who  is 
incarnate  God  can  do  all  things:  He  who  is  the  Truth  will 
fulfil  all  His  assurances. 

IX.  It  has  been  made  an  objection  that  the  Formula  in  which 
the  Lutheran  theologians,  combining  different  expressions  in  the 
symbols,  usually  set  forth  the  truth  of  the  presence,  is  not  war- 
ranted, even  if  the  Lutheran  doctrine  be  true,  inasmuch  as 
the  Scripture  does  not  say  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  "  in.  ivith.  and  under  the  bread."  It  is  ur^ed  that  ^^'  ^^'J^*^*'""  '■ 

'  '  o  "  ,n,  with,  under." 

we  ought  to  adhere  to  the  Biblical  phrase,  nay,  that 
we  attempt  to  substitute  for  a  Biblical  expression,  which 
allows  of  various  meanings,  one  of  our  own,  which  can  have 
but  one  sense.  It  has  been  asked,  If  our  Lord  meant  that 
His  body  was  to  be  given  "in,  with,  and  under  the  bread," 
why  did  He  not  say  so  in  so  many  words  ?  This  feeble 
sophistry  we  have  tried  to  dispose  of,  in  a  general  way, 
in  a  previous  discussion.*  The  men  who  urge  it  have  their 
own  phrases  by  which  they  ignore  the  direct  teachings  of 
the  word  of  God.  Let  any  man  admit,  without  equivoca- 
tion, as  the  very  letter  of  Scri'pture  asserts^  I.  That  what  Christ 
commands  us  to  take,  eat,  and  drink,  is  His  body  and  blood, 
and  II.  That  the  bread  we  break  is  the  communion  of  His 
body,  and  the  cup  we  bless  the  communion  of  His  blood,  and 
we  shall  have  no  quarrel  with  him,  as  we  are  sure  he  will  have 
none  with  us,  about  the  phrase,  "  in,  with,  and  under,"  which 
means  no  more  nor  less  than  the  Scripture  phrase.  Bread  and 
wine  are  there,  Christ's  body  and  blood  are  there ;  the  bread 
and  wine  communicate  the  body  and  blood ;  that  is  what  the 
Scripture  says,  and  this,  and  no  more,  is  what  the  Church 
says. 

The  implication  that  if  Christ  had  used  the  phrase  current 
in  our  Church,  those  who  now  reject  our  doctrine  would  have 
embraced  it,  was  long  ago  noticed  and  answered  by  Luther. 
In  his  Greater  Confession,  he  says :  "  If  the  text  was.  In  the 
bread  is  my  body,  or,  With  the  bread,  or.  Under  the  bread, 
then  would  the  fanatics  have  cried,  '  See  1  Christ  does  not  say, 

*  Pp.  184-186. 


820  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATTON. 

The  bread  is  my  body,  but  In  the  bread  is  my  body.'  Gladly 
would  we  believe  a  true  presence  if  He  had  only  said,  '  This  is 
my  body.'  That  would  be  clear;  but  He  only  says,  'In  the 
bread,  with  the  bread,  under  the  bread,  is  my  body.'  It  conse- 
quently does  not  follow  that  His  body  is  there.  If  Christ  had 
said,  In  the  bread  is  my  body,  they  could  more  plausibly 
have  said,  Christ  is  in  the  bread  spiritually,  or  by  significance. 
For  if  they  can  find  a  figure  in  the  words.  This  is  my  body, 
much  more  could  they  find  it  in  the  other  words,  In  the  bread 
is  my  body  ;  for  it  is  a  clearer  and  simpler  utterance  to  say 
This  is  my  body  than  to  say  In  this  is  my  body."  Certainly 
it  is  a  stronger  afiirmation  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  to  say 
Christ  is  God,  than  to  say  God  is  in  Christ,  God  is  with  Christ, 
or  God  is  under  the  form  of  Christ. 

1^0  phraseology  can  be  framed  which  in  itself  will  shut  up 
men  to  a  fixed  sense  who  are  determined  in  advance  not  to 
accept  that  sense.  The  history  of  the  terms  must  be  brought 
in,  in  such  case,  to  silence,  if  it  cannot  convince.  Yet  even 
the  amplest  history  which  fixes  a  sense  beyond  the  cavil,  which 
is  restrained  by  an  ordinary  self-respect,  is  not  suflicient  to 
overcome  the  persistent  obstinacy  of  determined  perverseness. 
There  are  no  words  in  the  past  whose  sense  is  more  absolutely 
fixed  by  every  attestation  of  the  letter  and  the  history  than 
the  words  of  the  Tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
Yet  in  the  face  of  those  clear  words,  and  of  that  ample  history, 
men  have  done  with  that  Article  just  as  they  have  done  with 
God's  word  :  "  The  body  and  blood,"  say  they,  quoting  it,  "  are 
truly  present  " — that  is,  by  the  contemplation  of  faith — "  under 
the  species  of  bread  and  wine,"  as  symbols  of  an  absent  thing, 
and  "  are  imparted  "  figurativel}^  spiritually,  and  ideally  "  to 
those  who  eat"  with  the  mouth  of  faith.  Hence  the  Confes- 
sors "disapprove  of  those  who  teach  the  opposite  doctrine;" 
that  is,  disapprove  of  themselves  and  the  Church  they  repre 
sent:  "Wherefore  also  the  opposite  doctrine,"  to  wit,  the 
Lutheran  doctrine,  "  is  rejected,"  and  the  Zwinglian,  Bucerian, 
Calvinistic,  is  accepted.  We  are  making  no  humorous  exag- 
geration.    The  Tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  has 


CONTINUAL  PRESENCE.  821 

actually  been  manipulated  in  such  a  way,  by  the  class  whom 
Luther  characterizes,  as  to  make  the  object  of  it  the  rejection 
of  the  faith  held  by  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  vindication  of 
her  enemies,  and  the  stultification  of  her  friends. 

X.  But  it  is  argued  that  the  doctrine  of  the  continual  personal 
presence  of  the  humanity  of  Christ  annihilates  the  very  theory 
it  is  intended  to  aid  ;  for  in  making  the  body  of  Christ  always 
present,  everywhere,  it  renders  impossible  any  special  presence, 
such  as  the  sacramental  presence  must  be  supposed  to  be. 
Hence  it  would  follow  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  no  more  a 
communion  than  any  other  supper  is,  and  "  this  bread  "  no 
more  than  any  other  bread,  the  communion  of  Christ's  body. 
This  objection,  if  honestly  urged,  implies  a  complete  ignorance 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence.  The  substantial  presence, 
though  presupposed  in  the  sacramental,  is  not  simply  identical 
with  it.  The  sacramental  presence  is  the  substantial  presence 
graciously  operative^  in,  with,  and  under  the  elements  divinely 
appointed  to  this  end.  God  is  everywhere  present,  yet  the 
Pagan  cannot  find  Him  for  want  of  the  divine  means  to  actu- 
alize that  presence.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  everywhere  present, 
but  He  can  be  found  only  in  His  Word  and  the  x.  continual  pre.- 
ordinances,  and  cannot  be  found  in  nature,  or  in  encenoargu- 
any  book  of  man.  The  divine  nature  of  the  Son  ramentli  pre«- 
of  God  is  personall}^  present  with  every  human  ^"^^• 
creature,  nay,  is  in  every  believer,  yet  no  man  thereby  becomes 
incarnate  God.  All  substantial  presence,  in  the  divine  economy, 
becomes  operative  through  means.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  no 
exception  to  this  rule.  The  relation  of  the  supernatural  reality 
conveyed,  to  the  natural  element  conveying,  is  not  that  of 
mechanical  union,  or  of  passive  copresence,  but  is  that  of  sacra- 
mental union,  of  voluntary  operativeness,  in  virtue  of  which 
the  consecrated  elements  are  the  media  of  a  communication 
which  would  not  take  place  without  them.  Hence,  while  the 
generic,  substantial  presence  of  the  w^hole  Christ  -perpetually 
characterizes  His  state  of  plenary  exercise  of  the  prerogatives 
of  His  undivided  divine-human  person,  the  specific  operative- 
ness of  that  presence  which  renders  it  sacramental  is  dependent 
upon  Christ's  will,  and  is  confined  to  the  Supper.  "  Christ,"  says 


822  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

the  Formula  of  Concord,*  "  cau  be  with  His  body.  .  .  wher* 
ever  He  wills  (wo  er  will  —  ubicunqne  voluerit),  and  there  espe- 
cially where  He  has  promised  that  presence  in  His  word,  as  in 
His  Holy  Slipper." 

XI.  An  objection  is  urged  by  Kahnis,  that,  "  according  to  the 
Lutheran  doctrine,  there  is  but  bread  and  wine,  not  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  before  the  eating  and  drinking,"  and 
therefore  were  that  doctrine  true,  Christ  would  not  have  said, 
This  is  ray  body,  "  but  would  have  had  to  say.  This  is  going 
io  he  my  body  when  you  eat  it."  Were  the  point  made  by 
Kahnis  correctly  made,  the  inference  justified  would  not  be 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence  is  untenable,  but  that 
there  ought  not  to  be  a  limitation  of  the  presence  to  the  act 
of  eating  and  drinking.  But  the  point  is  not  correctly  made. 
The  very  opposite  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  says,  ''  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
XI  oi.ection  ^^®  prcscut  ill  the  Supper^  and  there  communicated 
Nothing  6acra-  aud  rcccivcd."  Thc  distinction  is  made  between 
fTmrrmenu!  the  gcueric  preseuce  which  is  "  in  the  Supper,''  and 
"«»•  the  specific  participation  made  by  the  reception  of 

the  sacrament  imparted.  From  the  beginning  of  the  Supper, 
strictly  defined,  (that  is,  from  the  time  when  Christ's  consecrat- 
ing words  are  uttered  in  His  name  by  His  authority,)  to  its  end, 
(that  is,  until  the  last  communicant  has  received  the  elements,) 
or,  in  other  words,  from  the  first  time  to  the  last  "  in  the  Sup- 
per" in  which,  by  Christ's  authority,  it  is  declared,  ''This  is 
Christ's  body,  This  is  Christ's  blood,"  that  of  which  this  afi^rma- 
tion  is  made,  is  His  body,  and  is  His  blood.  When  He  said, 
Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body,  undoubtedly  He  meant.  Take,  eat, 
because  it  is  My  body.  The  presence  of  the  body  in  the  order 
of  thought  precedes  the  command  to  Take,  eat,  though  in  point 
of  time  they  are  absolutely  simultaneous.  He  imparts  His 
presence  that  there  may  be  a  reason  for  the  sacramental  eating. 
But  He  imparts  it  with  His  word,  by  whose  omnipotent  force 
the  element  becomes  a  sacrament.  Therefore,  when  He  speaks, 
we  know  it  is  done.  The  mathematical  moment  need  not 
concern  us.     We  know  the   sacramental  moment.     But  the 

*  695.  92. 


OBJECTION.  823 

presence  of  the  body  is  not  mechanical,  but  voluntary;  it  is 
conditioned  on  the  strict  observation  of  the  essentials  of  the 
institution.  The  body  is  present  for  sacramental  impartation, 
and  if  the  object  of  the  external  act  of  consecration  precludes  the 
communion^  if  the  elements  are  merely  to  be  reserved  or  carried 
about  in  procession  for  worship,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  there  is  any  sacramental  presence  of  Christ's  body  what- 
ever. Hence  the  emphasis  of  the  Confession,  "  in  the  Swpper" 
cutting  off  in  one  direction  an  objection  like  that  of  Kahnis, 
and  in  another  the  Romish  abuse  of  the  reservation,  proces- 
sion, and  worship  associated  with  the  elements. 

In  the  Formula  of  Concord*  the  error  of  the  Romish  Church 
is  defined  as  this :  "  They  feign  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
present  under  the  species  of  bread,  even  outside  of  the  conduct- 
ing of  the  Supper  (to  wit,  when  the  bread  is  shut  up  in  the  pyx, 
or  carried  about  as  a  show  and  object  of  worship).  For 
nothing  has  the  character  of  a  sacrament  outside  of  God's 
command,  and  the  use  to  which  it  has  been  appointed  by 
Christ."  This  implies  that  within  the  entire  conducting  of 
the  Supper,  properly  so  called,  as  distinct  from  the  mere  pre- 
liminaries, or  the  things  following  it,  the  body  of  Christ  is 
sacramentally  present ;  and  the  principle  that  nothing  has  a 
sacramental  character  apart  from  the  divine  command  and 
use,  is  properly  limited  by  its  antithesis  to  the  abuses  of  the 
Romish  Church.  The  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is, 
that  the  sacramental  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
begins  with  the  beginning  of  the  Supper,  and  ends  with  the 
end  of  the  Supper.  The  presence  does  not  depend  upon  the 
individual  eating ;  the  eating  simply  actualizes  a  presence 
existing ;  that  presence  is  vouchsafed  on  condition  that  the 
divine  essentials  of  the  institution  be  observed.  ''  As  to  the 
consecration,  w^e  believe,  teach,  and  confess,  that  the  presence 
of  the  body  and  blood  is  to  be  ascribed  solely  to  the  Almighty 
power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  The  words  of  the  institu- 
tion are  by  no  means  to  be  omitted.  .  .  The  blessing  (1  Cor. 
X.  16)  takes  place  through  the  repetition  of  the  words  of 
Christ." t     ''The  true  presence  is  produced,  not  hy  the  eating, 

*G70,  108  ;  665,  82.  f  Formula  Concord.  530,  9. 


824  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

or  the  faith  of  the  communicants,  but  simply  and  .solely  by  the 
power  of  Almighty  God,  and  the  word,  institution,  and  ordi- 
nation of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  those  most  true  and 
omnipotent  words  of  Jesus  Christ,  w^hich  He  spake  at  the 
original  institution,  were  not  only  efficacious  in  that  first 
Supper,  but  their  power,  virtue,  and  efficacy  abide  through  all 
time;  so  that  in  all  places  where  the  Lord's  Supper  is  cele- 
brated in  accordance  with  Christ's  institution,  by  virtue  of  and 
in  the  power  of  those  words  which  Christ  spake  at  the  first 
Supper,  Ilis  body  and  blood  are  truly  present,  communicated, 
and  received."  *  Luther  says,  "  When  (wenn-quando),  accord- 
ing to  His  command  and  institution  in  the  administration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  we  say,  ^  This  is  My  body,'  then  (so-tum)  it 
^5  His  body."  t  '' Melancthon  defines  the  sacramental  action 
relatively  to  what  is  without,  that  is  over  against  the  inclusion 
and  carrying  about  of  the  Sacrament ;  he  does  not  divide  it 
against  itself,  nor  define  it  against  itself."  :j:  In  a  word,  unless 
the  sacramental  action  is  entire,  as  Christ  ordained  it,  His 
sacramental  presence  will  not  be  vouchsafed  at  all ;  if  it  be 
entire.  His  presence  is  given  from  its  beginning  to  its  end.  If 
it  be  argued,  in  a  little  sophistical  spirit,  that  we  cannot  tell 
till  the  distribution  whether  the  action  will  be  complete,  it  is 
enough  to  reply  that  we  have  all  the  assurance  that  we  have 
in  any  case  of  moral  certainty.  Christ  himself  knows  the  end 
from  the  beginning.  At  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  the 
Supper,  the  minister  need  not  fear  to  assert,  nor  the  people  to 
believe,  the  very  words  of  Christ,  in  their  simplest  literal  force. 
It  is  not  going  to  he  but  is^  when  Christ  says  it  is. 

XII.  The  most  extraordinary  charge  against  the  Lutheran 

doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  that  made  by  Roman  Catholics 

and  by  some  of  the  Anglican  High  Church  school, 

Th^t"thrdoc!rine  to  wlt,  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  while  it  asserts 

is  useless  in  the  ^^^  obicctive  charactcr  of  the  presence  of  the  body 

Lutheran  System.  "^  .         ,  ,  t  tj^i 

and  blood  of  Christ,  is  able  to  make  very  little  use 

♦Formula  Concord.  CG3,  74,  75. 

f  Quoted  in  the  Formula  Concord.  664,  78,  as  confirmatory  of  its  position.    See 
also  Gerhard:  Loci.     Loc.  xxii.,  xvii.,  194.     (Ed.  Cotta  x.  327-329.) 
X  Luther.     Opera  Lat.  Jen.  iv.  586. 


EFFICACY  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS.  825 

of  the  presence  —  in  fact,  might  do  as  well  practically  without 
it.  The  objection  urged,  virtually  is  that  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  makes  null  the  benefits  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
as  involving  a  true  presence. 

On  the  general  question  of  the  efficacy  of  sacraments,  Chem- 
nitz* has  expressed  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  with  his  usual 
judgment :  "  If  regard  be  had  to  the  necessary  dis-  ciiemnitz  on 
tinction,  the  explanation  is  not  difficult  as  to  the  thu  efficacy  of  the 
mode  in  which  God  does  confer  grace  and  the  sac- 
raments do  not  confer  it  ?  God  the  Father  reconciles  the 
world  unto  Himself,  accepts  believers,  not  imputing  their  tres- 
passes unto  them.  Certainly  the  sacraments  do  not  confer 
grace  in  this  manner,  as  God  the  Father  Himself  does.  Christ 
is  our  peace.  The  death  of  Christ  is  our  reconciliation.  We 
are  justified  by  His  blood.  The  blood  of  Christ  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin.  He  was  raised  again  for  our  justification. 
Assuredly  Baptism  does  not  purge  away  our  sins  in  that  man- 
ner in  which  Christ  Himself  does.  There  is  the  Holy  Spirit's 
own  proper  efficacy  in  the  conferring  and  application  of  grace. 
And  the  sacraments  are  certainly  not  to  be  put  upon  an  equal- 
ity with  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  as  to  be  regarded  as  conferring 
grace  in  an  equal  and,  in  fact,  an  identical  respect  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  Himself  Does  it  follow,  then,  that  nothing  is  to 
be  attributed  to  the  sacraments  ?  Certainly  the  w^ords  of 
Scripture  attribute  something  to  the  sacraments.  But  most 
carefully  and  solicitously,  when  we  dispute  concerning  the  vir- 
tue and  efficacy  of  sacraments,  must  we  avoid  taking  from 
God,  and  transferring  to  the  sacraments  what  properly  belongs 
to  the  grace  of  the  Father,  the  eflScacy  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
merit  of  the  Son  of  God  :  for  this  would  be  the  crime  of  idola- 
try ;  nor  are  sacraments  to  be  added  as  assisting  and  partial 
causes  to  the  merit  of  Christ,  the  grace  of  the  Father,  and  the 
efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for  this  would  involve  the  same 
crime.  For  there  is  no  other  name  given  under  heaven  among 
men.  'My  glory  will  I  not  give  to  another.'  How,  then, 
does  Baptism  save  us  ?  How  is  it  the  laver  of  regeneration  ? 
This,  Paul  explains  very  simply,  when  he  says :  '  He  cleansed 

^Examen  Concil.  Trid.  (Ed.  Francof.  a.  M.  1707)295-298. 


826  CONSERVATIVE  REFORMATION. 

the  Church  with  the  laver  of  water  by  the  word.'  Wherefore 
the  Apology  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  rightly  says  that 
the  effect,  virtue,  and  efficacy  is  the  same  in  the  word  and  in 
sacraments,  which  are  the  seals  of  the  promises,  in  w^hich 
respect  St.  Augustine  calls  them  visible  loords.  The  gospel  is 
the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth, 
not  because  some  magical  power  adheres  in  the  letters,  syl- 
lables, or  sounds  of  the  w^ords,  but  because  it  \b  the  me- 
dium, organ  or  instrument  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
efficacious,  setting  forth,  offering,  imparting  (exhlbens),  dis- 
tributing and  applying  the  merit  of  Christ  and  the  grace  of 
God  to  the  salvation  of  every  one  that  believeth :  so  also  to 
the  sacraments  is  attributed  power  or  efficacy,  not  that  in  the 
sacraments  outside  or  apart  from  the  merit  of  Christ,  the  pity 
of  the  Father,  and  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  grace  to  be 
sought  unto  salvation ;  but  the  sacraments  are  instrumental 
causes,  so  that  through  these  means  or  organs  the  Father 
wishes  to  impart,  give,  apply,  His  grace :  the  Son  to  communi- 
cate His  merit  to  believers :  the  Holy  Ghost  to  exercise  His 
efficacy  to  the  salvation  of  every  one  that  believeth. 

"  In  this  way  God  retains  His  own  glory,  so  that  grace  is 
sought  nowhere  but  with  God  the  Father  ;  the  price  and  cause 
of  the  remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life  are  sought  nowhere 
but  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ ;  the  efficacy  of 
regeneration  unto  salvation  is  sought  nowhere  but  in  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost.  .  .  In  the  use  of  the  sacraments  faith 
does  not  seek  or  have  regard  to  some  virtue  or  efficacy  in  the 
outward  elements  of  the  sacraments  themselves ;  but  in  the 
promise  which  is  annexed  to  the  sacraments,  it  seeks,  lays  hold 
on,  and  receives  the  grace  of  the  Father,  the  merit  of  the  Son, 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  There  is  here  a  twofold 
instrumental  cause.  One  is,  as  it  were,  God's  hand,  by  which, 
throuo-h  the  word  and  the  sacraments  in  the  word,  he  offers, 
imparts  (exhibet),  applies,  and  seals  to  believers  the  benefits 
of  redemption.  The  other  is,  as  it  were,  our  hand,  to  wit, 
that,  by  faith,  we  seek,  lay  hold  on,  and  accept  those  things 
which  God  offers  and  imparts  (exhibet)  to  us  through  the 
word  and  sacraments.     There  is  no  such  efficacy  of  sacraments 


EFFICACY  OF   THF  SACRAMENTS.  827 

as  if  God,  through  them,  infuses  or  impresses  grace  to  salva- 
tion, even  on  those  who  do  not  believe  or  accept.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  sentence:  *  It  is  not  the  sacrament  which  justifies, 
but  the  faith  of  the  sacrament,'  is  not  that  faith  justifies  with- 
out accepting  the  grace  which  God  offers  and  imparts  in  the 
word  and  sacraments,  or  that  it  accepts  the  grace  without 
the  means  or  organ  of  the  word  and  sacraments.  For  the  ob- 
ject of  faith  is  the  word  and  sacraments ;  nay,  rather,  in  the 
word  and  sacraments  the  true  object  of  faith  is  the  merit  of 
Christ,  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit.  Faith 
justifies,  therefore,  because  it  lays  hold  of  those  things  in  the 
word  and  sacraments.  God  does  not  impart  His  grace  in  this 
life  all  at  once,  so  that  it  is  straightway,  absolute,  and  finished, 
so  that  God  has  nothing  more  to  confer,  man  nothing  more  to 
receive ;  but  God  is  always  giving  and  man  is  always  receiv- 
ing, so  as  ever  to  be  more  closely  and  perfectly  joined  to 
Christ,  to  hold  more  and  more  firmly  the  pardon  of  sins ;  so 
that  the  benefits  of  redemption,  which  have  been  begun  in.  us, 
may  be  preserved,  strengthened,  and  increased.  Wherefore 
the  sacraments  are  not  idle  or  bare  signs,  but  God,  through 
them,  ofters  to  believers  His  grace,  imparts  it,  applies  it,  and 
seals  it.  .  .  Between  the  promise  and  faith  the  relation  is  so 
close  that  the  promise  cannot  benefit  a  man  without  faith,  nor 
faith  benefit  a  man  without  the  promise.  .  .  In  this  sense  Lu- 
ther says:  'The  sacraments  were  instituted  to  excite,  nourish, 
strengthen,  increase,  and  preserve  faith,  so  that  whether  in 
the  promise  naked,  or  in  the  promise  in  the  vesture  of  the  sacra- 
mental rite,  it  may  grasp  and  accept  grace  and  salvation.'  "  In 
discussing  more  particularly  the  benefits  of  the  Eucharist,  the 
same  great  writer  says :  *  "  Faith,  in  the  reception  of  the 
Eucharist,  should  reverently  consider  and,  with  thanksgiving, 
embrace  all  the  riches  and  the  whole  treasure  of  the  benefits, 
which  Christ  the  Mediator,  b}^  giving  up  His  body  and  shed- 
ding His  blood,  has  purchased  for  His  Church.  .  .  That  they 
also  receive  the  remission  of  sins,  who  are  conscious  of  grievous 
crimes,  and  do  not  renounce  them,  but  cherish  still  the  pur- 
pose of  evil-doing,  who  bring  no  fear  of  God,  no  penitence  or 

*Exainen  Conoil.  Trid.  (Ed.  FrancoflF.  a.  M.  1707,)  864,  366. 


828  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

faith,  but  knowingly  persist  in  sins  contrary  to  their  con- 
sciences, is  something  which  in  no  manner  whatever  is  taught 
by  us.  For  among  us  men  are  seriously  admonished  that 
those  who  do  not  repent,  but  who  persevere  in  sins  against 
conscience,  eat  and  drink  judgment  to  themselves,  and  become 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  For  the  offence 
against  God  is  aggravated  by  their  taking  the  Eucharist  in 
impenitence,  and  treating  with  indignity  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord.  In  order  that  the  eating  may  profit  men,  it  is 
necessary  that  they  should  have  penitence,  the  fear  of  God, 
which  w^orks  dread  of  sin  and  of  His  wrath  against  it  and 
destroys  the  purpose  of  evil-doing.  Faith  also  is  necessary, 
which  seeks  and  accepts  remission  of  sins  in  the  promise." 
*'  Inasmuch  as  in  the  Eucharist  we  receive  that  bodj^  of  Christ 
which  was  delivered  for  us,  and  that  blood  of  the  Kew  Testa- 
ment which  was  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  who  can  deny 
that  believers  there  receive  the  treasure  of  all  the  benefits  of 
Christ  ?  For  they  receive  that  in  which  sins  are  remitted,  in 
which  death  is  abolished,  in  which  life  is  imparted  to  us ;  that 
by  which  Christ  unites  us  to  Himself  as  members,  so  that  He 
is  in  us,  and  we  in  Him.  .  .  '  Kot  ox\]y  does  the  soul  rise 
through  the  Holy  Ghost  into  a  blessed  life,  but  the  earthly 
body  is  brought  back  by  that  food  to  immortality,  to  be  raised 
to  life  in  the  last  day '  (Cyril).  In  the  Eucharist,  therefore, 
we  receive  a  most  sure  and  admirable  pledge  of  our  reconcilia- 
tion with  God,  of  the  remission  of  our  sins,  of  immortality, 
and  of  the  glory  to  come.  And  in  very  deed  Christ  hath 
abundantly  poured  out  in  this  sacrament  the  riches  of  His 
divine  love  toward  men ;  for  that  body  wdiich  He  delivered  for 
us  unto  death.  He  gives  to  us  in  the  Supper  for  food,  that  by 
it,  as  divine  and  life-giving  food,  we  may  live,  may  be  nurtured 
and  grow,  and  strengthen,  and  so  turned  to  Him  as  never  to 
be  separated  from  Him,  as  Augustine  piously  says,  on  the  Per- 
son of  Christ :  '  Thou  shalt  not  change  me  unto  Thee,  but 
Thou  shalt  change  Thyself  unto  me.'  " 

Gerhard  sums  up  the  benefits  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  either 
princi[>al  or  secondary:  '*  The  principal  fruits  are:  the  show- 
ing of  the  Lord's  death,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  sealing  of 


IMPORTANCE   OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  829 

faith,  spiritual    ^nion  with    Christ.     The   secondary  are:  re 
newal  of  the  baptismal  covenant,  the  arousing  of  love  to  God 
and  our  neighbor,  the  conlirniation  of  patience  and  hope,  the 
attestation  of  our  resurrection,  the  serious  amendment  of  life, 
public  confession  of  Christ."* 

It  is  not  in  the  power  of  language  to  go  beyond  the  state- 
ment of  the  blessings  which  the  Lutheran  Church  believes  to 
be  associated  with  the  believing  reception  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. The  quarrel  of  Romanists  and  their  friends  with  her  is 
not  that  she  diminishes  the  benefits  of  the  Supper,  but  that 
she  makes  them  conditioned  on  faith.  The  real  thins:  with 
which  they  quarrel  is  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 

We  have  dwelt  at  what  may  seem  disproportioned  length 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  but  we  have  done  so 
not  in  the  interests  of  division,  but  of  peace.  At  this  point 
the  division  opened,  and  at  this  point  the  restoration  of  peace 
must  begin.  Well-set  bones  knit  precisely  where  they  broke  ; 
and  w^ell  knit,  the  point  of  breaking  becomes  the  strongest  in 
the  bone.  The  Reformation  opened  with  a  prevailingly  con- 
servative character.  There  lay  before  it  not  merely  a  glorious 
possibility,  but  an  almost  rapturous  certainty,  waiting  upon 
the  energy  of  Reform  guided  by  the  judgment  of  Conserva- 
tism. The  Reformation  received  its  first  appalling  check  in 
the  invasion  of  its  unity  in  faith,  by  the  crudities  of  Carlstadt, 
soon  to  be  followed  by  the  colder,  and  therefore  yet  more  mis- 
chievous, sophistries  of  Zwingle.  The  efi:brt  at  reformation,  in 
some  shape,  was  beyond  recall.  Henceforth  the  question  was 
between  conservative  reformation  and  revolution ar}^  radical- 
ism. Rome  and  the  world-wide  errors  which  stand  or  fall 
with  her,  owe  their  continued  baleful  life,  not  so  much  to  the 
arts  of  her  intrigue,  the  terror  of  her  arms,  the  wily  skill  and 
intense  devotion  of  Jesuitism  and  the  orders,  as  they  owe  it 
to  the  division  and  diversion  created  by  the  radicalism  which 
enabled  them  to  make  a  plausible  appeal  to  the  fears  of  the 
weak  and  the  caution  of  the  wise.  But  for  this,  it  looks  as  if 
the  great  ideal  of  the  conservative  reformation  might  have 

*  Gerhard's  Ausf.  Erklaer  d.  heilig.  Taufe  u.  Abendm.  IGIO,  4to,  ch.  xxiii.   Do. 
Loci  Theolog.  Loc.  xxii.  ch.  xx. 


830  CONSERVATIVE   REFORMATION. 

been  consummated  ;  the  whole  Church  of  the  West  might 
have  been  purified.  All  those  mighty  resources  which  Rome 
now  spends  against  the  truth,  all  those  mighty  agencies  by 
which  one  form  of  Protestantism  tears  down  another,  might 
have  been  hallowed  to  one  service  —  Christ  enthroned  in  His 
renovated  Church,  and  sanctifying  to  pure  uses  all  that  is 
beautiful  in  her  outward  order.  The  Oriental  Church  could 
not  have  resisted  the  pressure.  The  Church  Catholic,  trans- 
figured by  her  faith,  with  robes  to  which  snow  has  no  white- 
ness and  the  sun  no  splendor,  would  have  risen  in  a  grandeur 
before  which  the  world  would  have  stood  in  wonder  and  awe. 
But  such  yearnings  as  these  wait  long  on  time.  Their  con- 
summation was  not  then  to  be,  but  it  shall  be  yet. 


INDEX. 


(The  Roman  Numerals  indicate  the  entire  Dissertations  so  numbered.) 


Adam,  Original  state 378 

Fall. 379 

Alone  mentioned 380 

Adlaphorce 321 

Aldine,  Greek  Text 96,  98 

Allegory,  Nature  of 618 

Alle^if  George,  Prof.,  Communion 

of  Priests  621,  n 

Alting,    H.,    Lutheran    and    Re- 
formed Churches 133 

Ambrose^  Lord's  Supper 635,  675 

America f    Lutheran  Church    in, 

General  Council  of. 162 

Church  in,  the  Fathers 

of. 218 

American  and  German 208 

Anabaptists,  Pelagian 447 

Infant  Baptism.,..  574-576,681 

Andrew  297,  309 

Anthropology^  Original  sin 365 

Apology   of  Augsburg    Confes- 
sion .* 275-280 

Value  of 279 

Original  sin 373,  375,  378 

Infant  Baptism 576 

Aquinas,  (Hymn,)  Lord's  Supper  754 

Arnold,  Dr.,  Germans 155 

Articles,  Electoral-Torgau 293 

Audin,  Cause  of  Reformation 3 

History  of  Luther 10,  22 

Luther's  visit  to  Rome 25 

Luther's  Bible 32 

Luther  and  Madeleine  43 

Augsburg  Confession,  31, 179,  VI. 

'—  Variata 180,  243-248 

on  original  sin 409 

on    necessity   of  Bap- 
tism   562 

Bibliography  of. 201,  n 

History  of 212 

Bibliography,  212,  n.  220,  n 

Preparation  of. 216 

Preliminaries  to 216 

Bibliography  of 216,  n 

Authorship  of 220 

■  Luther's  relations  to 220 


Augsburg  Confession, 

Luther's  opinion  of 234 

Object  of 242 

Presentation  of. 242 

Texts  of 242-253 

Manuscripts  of. 244,  n 

Editions    and    Translations 

of 248 

Bibliography  of 248,  n 

Structure  of 253 

Divisions  of 253 

Value  of 255 

Protest  against  Romanism..  255 

Interpretation  of,  Bibliogra- 
phy   255,  n 

Political  value  of 257 

Value  as  a  Confession  nv'\ 

Apology 258 

A  centre  of  associations 259 

A  guide  to  Christ 259 

Value  for  the  future 260 

Dogmatic   works    on.  Bibli- 
ography   260,  » 

as  a  creed,  right  reception 

of  260-267 

Dr.  Shedd  on 332-337 

"Romanizing  Elements"...  342 

Texts  of  Latin  and  German  356 

Melancthonian  &  For- 
mula    358 

Papal  Confutation 360 

Commission  on 361 

Original  Sin 363 

Article IL  130,  244,  IX. 


.III. 
IX.  130, 
..  X. 


Perversion  of... 
'*  Inthe  Supper 

XIII 

XIX 


X. 

XI, 

XII. 

XIIL 

XIV. 

.  820 
"  823 
..  339 
..  374 


Augustine,  Original  Sin  361,  362,  407 

Traducianism 371 

Pelagianism  ; 447 

881 


832 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

JLltf/WSf me,  Person  of  Christ  469-510 
'■ —  Infiints,  believers 581 

Tree  of  Life 588 

Lord's  Supper,  075,746,  749,  750 

751. 

(?)  personal  unity  of  man...   805 

Au(/HsttfSf     Elector    of     Sax- 
ony   296.  308 

BaieVf  Lord's  Supper 770 

IBaptistiif  Lutheran    Doctrine   of 
lli9,  XL 

—  Relations  of,  to  Original  Sin  427 

Necessity  of 427,  557 

in  what  sense  430,  562 

not  absolute 431,  563 

Luther 431 

Bugenhagen 432 

Ilotfman 433 

Feuerlin 433 

Carpzov 433 

■ Ordinary  means  of  grace  439-444 

Alford 442,  443,  444 

Calvin 444 

only  means  of  universal  ap- 

plication   444 

Disputes  in  regard  to 519 

■ Immersion  not  essential  to  519 

use  of  the  word  in  Augsburg 

Confession 520 

force  of  word  ^'begiessen"  527 

-531. 
Luther,  translation  of  words 

connected  with 531-536 

Luther,       Etymologies      of 

words 536 

did  not  regard  Immer- 
sion as  necessary  540-542 

Mode  in  Lutheran  Liturgies  541 

542 

Testimonies   of  Drs.    Kurtz 

and   Schmucker 543 

views  of   the  old  Lutheran 

Divines 543,  544 

Internal  efficacy  of  545-557,  583 

584. 

Not  mere  w;iter 558,  583 

Regeneration   does    not   al- 
ways follow 559 

Difference  between  "  essen- 
tial" and  '-necessary"..  562 

Lutheran  theologians  on  ne- 
cessity of 564 

Calvinistic     and     Lutheran 

views  compared  570-574 

Infant,  argument  for...   576-581 

JUisis  Coii/essioital  of  Luther- 
an Churcli,  Reasons  for 179 


FAOR 

Bat/lCf  Peter,  Fathers  on  Lord's 
Supper 663 

JBellarniinef  Romanism  and 
Calvinism 628 

• —  Consubstantiation 772 

Bible,  Luther's 8,  12,  32 

in  Middle  Ages 7 

First  Polyglot   8 

where  it  fell  open 9 

tlie  only  Rule 14 

human  explanations  of 185 

Bii'thf  NetVf  Necessity  of  abso- 
lute   415-439 

Infants  need 416 

Infants  capable  of 418 

Holy  Spirit,  sole  author  of..  420 

Baptism  one  ordinary  mean  439 

-445. 

Body,  Spiritual 806 

Book  of  Concord 127,  VII. 

against  persecution 144 

Bread  and  JFine,  Species  of...  620 
in  what  sense  "  the  body  and 

blood  of  Christ" 673-678 

metaphorically  used 717 

breaking  of  719 

no  symbol  of  crucifixion 723 

BrentinSf  Hallam  on 76,  n 

Lord's  Supper 761 

BuddeilSf  Lord's  Supper 770 

CalovlflSf  Consubstantiation 769 

Calvin  on  Luther 132 

signed  unaltered  Augsburg 

Confession 180 

Infant  Regeneration 420 

Confession  of  Faith 490 

Lord's  Supper  493-495,  630,  636, 

756. 

Faith  in  Infants 580 

•  as  a  Lutheran  Minister 756 

Calvinism  self-contradictory  435,  436 

Socinianizing  tendency  of...  489 

View  of  Baptism.. 570 

compared     with      the 

Lutheran  view      571-573 

Cai'lsfadt 27,  30,  608,  666 

Carpzov ,  Consubstantiation 768 

Catechism,  Luther's 32 

Heidelberg  ...  351-353,  487,  488 

Genevan 483 

Ceremonies,  Ecclesiastical 321 

Charles  V,,  Reformation 18 

at  Augsburg 31 

— ■ at  Luther's  grave 44 

Chemnitz 309 

on     Personal    Presence    of 

Christ 4(;6-475 


INDEX. 


833 


Chemnitz,  Body  of  Christ 469 

meaning  of  Bnptizo 543 

Consubstantiation  763 

Sacraments,  efficacy  of 825 

Christy  Descent  into  hell 320 

Person  of,  Formula  of  Con- 
cord   31G,  514-517 

Lutheran  and  Reform- 
ed Doctrine  of X. 

Sacramental  Presence  of....     X. 

Bibliography 456,  n 

Presence,  Doctrine  of  ...  458,  469 

not  local 458 

but  true 459-461 


—  Ascension  of 466,  814-817 

—  Body  of. 469 

—  inseparable    unity    of    His 

person    481 

—  in  heaven 483,484 

—  Resurrection  Life  of 484 

—  Lutheran    Doctrine    Scrip- 

tural   501-507 

Sustained       by       the 

Fathers 508-510 

Scholastics 510 

some  modern  Ro- 
manists    511 

Metaphysicians...  511 

admissionsof  Cal- 

vinists 511,  512 

—  Worship    of,    according    to 


His  human  nature 512 

body  and  blood    of.   Sacra- 
mental Communion 629 

person.    Unity    of,   not   dis- 
solved by  death  794 

Christianity ,  Essential  idea  of..  113 
Christians^  whom  may  we  recog- 
nize as 192 

Chr'ysostom,   Omnipresence    of 

Christ 509 

Tree  of  Life 588 

Lord's  Supper  635,  660,  740,  746 

748-751. 

Ascension  of  Christ 815 

Church  195 

Church f  Ancient f  Sacramental 

presence 657-663 

sustains  Antithesis  in  Art. 

X 725-752 

Chtirchf  Evangelical  Protestant..  114 
Lutheran,  Reformed  Testi- 
mony to 132 

. Controversies  of 147 

Theological  Science  in  148 

149,  151. 

in  United  States 150 

Education  in 161 

63 


PACK 

C/tWfc/l',  Missions  in 152 

('l)urch  Constitution...    152 

Fidelity  of,  toherC<>n- 

fessions 196 

Acquaintanoewith,  im- 
portance of 211 

Relationsto  Zvvinglian- 

Calvinistic  churches  325 

History  and  doctrines 

of,  some  mistakes  in 

regard  to VIIL 

not  Romanizing 187 

• Theological  Seminary 

of,  at  Philadelphia...   164 

Charity  of 142 

Life  in 154 

Nationalities  of 155 

Mission  of,  in  America  159 

—  Future  of 161 

' RelationstootherCom- 

munions  138 

Worship,  divine  in 153 

Churchf    Reforniedf    Import- 
ance of  Lutheran  Church  to 311 

Chytrceiis 311 

Claude^  Lutherans 136 

Corner 311 

Coininunicatio    idioniatum  476 

-481. 
Communion^    Sacramental,    in 

what  sense  oral 461 

spiritual 462-465 

who  receive? 463 

in  one  kind 621 

of  the  unworthy 641-648 

(Koinonia,    1    Cor.    x     16  ) 

Force  of  word 629-641 

Assembly,  Westminster,  an- 

notat 638 

Baumgarten,  S.  J 639 

Bishop's  Bible 637 

Calovius 639 

Clarke,  Adam 638 

Conybeare  and  Howson 638 

Coverdale 637 

Genevan  Version 637 

Gill 639 

Hall,  Bp 638 

Hammond 688 

Henry,  Matthew 638 

Hodge,  Dr 639 

Hussey 637 

Macknight 638 

Nevin,  J.  W.,  Dr 639 

Olshausen  640 

Parkhurst 639 

Pool 637 

Ruckert 641 


834 


INDEX. 


Communion^  Schmucker,  S.  S., 

Dr 

Sharp,  Arbp   

Tyndale 

Wilson,  Bp. 


639 
688 
637 
637 


Complnfensiaii  Text 96,  99 

Concomitance^       Sacramental, 

rejected. ^-^ 

Concord,  ^ook  of VIL 

Contents  of 268,  275 

repressed     multiplica- 
tion of  creeds 274 

Concord.  Formula  of 288 

-  History 289 

Reception 302 

Merits 305 

Value  305,  328 

plan 312 

doctrines 312,  348 

Melancthon  in 326 

closing  word"*  of 328 

Dr.  Shedd  on... 345 

"  The  Bread  is  Christ's 

body  " 677 

modes  of  presence 762 

When  is  the  presence 

vouchsafed?  ....  823,  824 

Saahlan-Saxon...   294 

Confession,  what  shall  be  our?..  167 

Confessions,  distinctive 168 

Fidelity  to 169 

object    of    theological 

tijiining  176 

Ministerial     efficiency 

dependent  on 177 

Subscription  to 177 

notinconsistent  withauthor- 

ity  of  Rule  of  Faith 184 

not  Romanizing 186 

Importance  of 204 

Relations  of,  to  Reformation  205 

the  Reformed 352 

Confutation,    Papal,    of    Augs- 
burg Confession 624 

History  and  Literature  of  626,  n 

Consecration  in  the  Supper 179 

Conservatism  of  Lutheran  Ref- 
ormation    49,  202 

Ranke  on 84 

Consnhstantiatlon  rf^jected  by 

Lutheran  Church 130,  339 

Proof  of  this; 

1.  From  Confessions  of  Lutheran 
Church,   Formula,  130,  762. 

2.  Lutheran  Divines:  Luther,  130, 
757:  Brentius,  761;  Chemnitz,  764; 
Andreae,  764;  Hutter,  758,  766; 
Osiander,   767;   Mcntzer,   Gerhard, 


340;  Carpzov,  768;  Musaeus,  Scher- 
zer,  768;  Calovius,  Quenstedt,  769; 
Baier,  340;  Leibnitz,  340;  Buddeus, 
770;  Cotta,  340,  771;  Pfaff,  775; 
Mosheim,  341  ;  Reinhard,  341. 

3.  Roman  Catholic  Divines,  771  ; 
Perrone,  Beccan,  Moehler,  Wise- 
man, 772;  Bouvier,  773. 

4.  Calvinistic  Divines,  755-757,  759  : 
Bucer,  340,  773;  Musculus,  Whit- 
aker,  Salmasius,  Stapfer,  774  ; 
Waterland,  130;  D'Aubign^,  131. 

Copula <>96 

interpretation  of 696 

Bagster's  Gr.  Lex 696 

Carlstadt 695 

Green's  Gr.  Lex 696 

Hoffman,  D 696 

Kahnis  696,  697,  704,  705 

Luther 696 

•  Keckerman  695 

(Ecolampadius 695,  705 

Piscator 696 

Robinson 696,  697 

Schaff 696,  697 

Wendelin  694 

Corpora  Doctrince 291 

Corruption,  the  state  of.... 373 

Cotta,  Lords  Supper 340,  771 

salvation  of  Pagan  infants..  564 

Council,    General,   of   E.    L. 

Church  in  America,  Fundamental 

Principles 162 

Creation 797 

Creationisni,  immediate 369 

Creed,  Apostles^ 168 

implies    the    Communicatio 

idiomatum 316 

Creeds,  wide 183 

fallacy  of  argument  for  190 

may  a  church  change 269 

growth  of 270 

defining  of. 272 

Formula  of  Concord  on 313 

Crypto- Calvinism .^. -^  292 

Cup  in  Supper.. 777-782 

Cyril    of   Jerusalem,    Lord's 
Supper 


675 


Dannhauer,  Calvinistic  view  of  ^ 

Christ's  presence 500 

Death  no  regenerating  power 426 

Denmark ^^^ 

Development,  Shedd  on.. 330 

X)rea/*l«,  interpretation  of 614 

Election,  Calvinistic 434 

Infant 435 


INDEX. 


835 


ElectiOflf  unconditional,  and  Pe- 

lagianisni 584 

Elements,    Worship    of,    or    of 

Christ  in  022 

Einserf  Counter-translation..   104-107 
Ephes.  iv.  10.,   "above  all  heav- 
ens"   815-817 

Erasmus,  Greek  Text 97 

Luther  and 66 

Error  and  Errorists 143 

Course  of 195 

Formula  of  Concord  on 825 

Etertiitu 798 

Eui'harist  180, 314, 337,  X.,  XII  -XIV. 
Eiltychianism,  Lutheran   doc- 
trine not  in  affinity  with 475,  470 

Evangelical,  name  of  Lutheran 

Church 116 

Excommunication  I,  Force  and 

extent  of 191 

Exorcism 185,  136,  154 


Facundus,  Lord's  Supper 

Faith,  llule  of. 14-17, 

Supreme  Authority  of. 

Formula  of  Concord  on 

Fundamental  principles  of.. 

Confession  of. 

Church,  Restoration  of 


Fathers,  use  of,  in  Reformation.. 

on  Lord's  Supper  035,  725, 

Rules  in  interpretation  of... 

Fif/nre,  iu    what  sense   used   by 

Fathers 

use  of  word,  by  Tertullian. 


Fiffures,  Grammatical  and  Rhe- 
torical  

Flacius,  Illyricus,  Baptizo 

Fundamentals,  union  in 

nature  of 182, 


675 
165 
184 
313 
163 
166 
200 
15 
740 
726 

741 
742 

701 
544 

181 
183 


Gaudentins,  Lord's  Supper 674 

Genera,  Church  of,  Lutherans 

and  Reformed 137 

Gerhard,  Baptism 544 

''  Touto  "  and  "  Artos  " 671 

"  The     bread     is     Christ's 

body" 077,  678 

Gerhart,  E.  V.,  Dr.,  Article  of, 

Ueviewed  .  X. 

Gerlach,  Stephen,  Baptism 544 

German  Character 155 

Language,  Luther  13 

Germany,  Reformation  in 17 

God,  Right  hand  of 485,  817 

GOf^fte^,    Luther,   author  of    Ref- 
ormation     125 

Lutheran    Church   126,  151,  155 


PAOB 

Gospel  and  Law,  Formula  of  Con- 
cord    314 

Grauer,  Baptism 437 

Gref/ori/  Nyssen,  Lord's  Sup- 
per      675 

Gregory    the    Great,    Lord's 

Supper 750 

Service  of 753 

Grotius,  "  all  heavens  " 816 

Guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood,  (1 

Cor.  xi.  27-29) 642-648 

Calvinists,  Gualther,  Meyer, 

Parens  on 648 

Syriac  version 642 

Gustavus  Adolphus 1 56 

Gustavus  Vasa 156 

Hamilton,  Jas.,  Dr.,   Resurrec- 
tion Life  of  our  Lord 484 

Hamilton,  Wm.,  Sir,   791,  792,  803 

804. 
Hehretvs  iv.  14,  "passed  through 

the  heavens" 816 

Hegel,  Fall 376 

Philosophy  790,  802 

Hell,  Descent  of  Christ  into 320 

//cp^9f,Calvinistic  view  of  Baptism  570 

Heretics  and  Heresy 143,  144 

Ancient.  Lord's  Supper 752 

High  Chlirchism,  Lutheranism 

not 141 

Hollazins,  Fall 377 

Huguenots^  Sympathy  with,  6X7 

pressed  in  Book  of  Concord 145 

Hunnius,  Salvation  of  Pagan  In- 
fants   564 

Hutter,  Baptism,  necessity  of 562 

Huygens 817 

Hypostatic  Union 798 

Idealism,  Theological 788 

Transcendental 789 

Subjective 790 

Objective 790 

Realistic 791 

Idiomatum  Comtnnnicatio, 
Formula  of  Concord..,.   316-320 

Apostles' Creed 316 

Nicene  Creed 317 

Athanasian  Creed 317 

Augsburg  Confession 317 

Ignatius^  Lord's  Supper  635,  727-730 

impossible,  the 796 

Imputation 382 

Infants,  unbaptized,  431,  561. 582. 583 

sin  of IX. 

elect 434,  571-574 

of  unbelievers 433 


836 


INDEX. 


Infants  of  heathens 433,  561-564 

. —  salvation  of 434 

^regeneration  of 569 

. consequences  of  deny- 
ing   570 

faith  of 578-581 

^ defined  by  Chemnitz...  579 

Calvinistic  admissions 

in  regard  to 580 

held  by  Ancient  Church  581 

Ttifcgritf/,  the  state  of 371 

IreitceUSf  Lord's  Supper  635,  736-739 

Doellinger 737 

Dorner 738 

Moehler  738 

Semisch 738 

**Ts''  cannot  mean   "is  a  symbol 

of"  612-619 

De  Wetie  on 690 

Meyer,    Olshausen,    Lange, 

the  Cixlvinists 691 

cannot  involve  Metaphor....   692 

Calvinistic   theory   involves 

that  it  does 695 

yet    is    abandoned   by   best 

Calvinistic  writers:  Kec- 
kermann,  Piscator.  Rob- 
inson, Schaff 695-697 

Luther's  renderings  of 697 

inflexible  character  of 698 

reductio  ad  absurdum 699 

See  "Copula." 


Jerome,  Lord's  Supper 635, 

John  of  Damascus,  Lord^s 
Supper 635, 

Judas  at  the  first  Supper 

Judf/tnentf  private 

use  and  abuse  of 

limitation  of 172. 

abuse  of,  not  to  be  re- 
strained by  persecu- 
tion   

how  to  be  re- 
strained  

Justification,  Formula  of  Con- 
cord   

Justin  Martyr,  Lord's  Supper 
730-735. 

•  Doellinger  

. Dorner  

Ebrard  

. Kahnis  

Thiersch 


674 

636 
645 
169 
171 
175 


173 

174 

313 

635, 

735 
735 
735 
735 
784 


Kahnis,  Lutheran  Church  146 

Lord's  Supper,  on 678 

. controverted 690 


Kahnis  adds  to,  and  contradicts 

Scripture 722 

•  misstates     Lutheran     Doc- 
trine   822,  823 

Kind  and  Jlode 807 

Knox,  A.,  Lord's  Supper 776,  n 

KwUner,  Augsburg  Confession, 

Luther's 238 

Apology 276 

Krotel,  Dr  ,  Schenkel's  Article...  513 
Kurtz,  H.,  Lutheran  Church......   125 

LaiV  and  Gospel,  Formula  of  Con- 
cord   : 314 

third  use  of 314 

Life,  Tree  of 586 

1  Bush 589 

. Delitzch 588 

Gregory  Nazianzen 588 

Vatablus 588 

Light 816 

Lightfoot,  Infant  Baptism o77 

Limborch,   Calvinistic    doctrine 

of  Lord's  Supper 499 

Liturgies,  Ancient,  Sacramental  ^ 

presence '52 

Lord's  Day 132 

Luther,  Theses  1-4,  27 

.  Bible,  Translation  of...  8,  12,  32 

versions  preceding 13 

-  first  sight  of 9-11 

New    Testament,     Transla- 
tion of III. 

Boyhood,   preparation 

for 89 

Education 89 

Hebrew  and  Greek  ....     90 

Fritzsche 90 

Piety 90 

German  Style 91 

Translations,  earliest 92,  93 

First  Draft 93 

Versions      and      texts 

used  93-100 

order  of  books 100,  101 

Revision 101 

-  Early  impressions 102 

enemies 103—107 

latest  revisions 107 

advances  of  literature  108 

rival  translations 109 

defects    and    excellen- 
ces   109,110 

Revision HI 

early  studies 10 

a  Reformer  because  a  Chris- 
tian      18 

pictured  by  pencil  and  pen    II. 


INDEX. 


837 


Luther  J  childhood 23 

youth 24 

university  lite 25 

visits  Rome 25,  20 

begins  the  Reformation 27 

at  Diet  of  Worms 28 

at  the  Wartburg 29 

struggle  with  fanaticism 29 

— and  Melancthoii  30 

Marriage 30 

and  Zwiiigle 30 

Augsburg  Confession  31,221,222 

Catechisms 32 

occasion  284 

character 284 

authority 285 

opinions 286 

Church  Service 33 

in  private  life 33 

at  Christmas 34-36 

Letter  to  little  Hans...   36,  37,  n 

—  Madeleine 38-43 

Last  days  and  death 43,  44 

Charles  V.  at  his  tomb 44 

■ — - —  Characterized,     Atter- 

bury 50 

Audin 5,  25,  26,  32,  43 

Bancroft,  A.,  Rev 50 

Bancroft,  G 72 

Bayle 51 

Bengel 31 

Bossuet 53 

Bower 53 

Brewster 55 

Buddeus 59 

Bunsen 65  66 

. Calvin 132 

Carlyle 23,  28,  39,  56 

Chemnitz 57 

Claude 57 

Coleridge 58,  59 

Cox 60 

Coxe 59 

Cyclopedia  Br.  Soc 63 

Rees' 65 

D'Aubign^ 60 

Dictionnaire  Historique     61 

D'Israeli 61 

Doederlein 62 

Dupin 63 

Erasmus 66-70 

Fritzsche 90 

Gelzer 70 

Gerhard  73 

Guericke 71 

Guizot 71 

Hagenbach   73 

Hallam 74 


PAOB 

Luther f  Characterized,  Hare    78 

.         Hase 78 

Heine 45 

Herder 80 

Kahnis 82 

Kidder 52 

Kohlrausch 72 

Lessing 45 

Melancthon 85,  86,  89 

Menzel 46 

Palavicini 83 

Ranke 84 

Raumer,  V.  F 83 

Reuss 109 

Robertson 71 

Schlegel  46-50 

.^         Smythe  71 

Stang 85 

Vaughan 70 

Wieland 85 

Zwingle    132 

Character,  Summary  of...  86,  87 

unify,  desire  for 138 

Swiss  Church  139 

Waldenses 140 

on  mode  of  Baptism 520 

the  Jewess..  520-524 

Catechisms,  on  Baptism  524-527 

on  Lord's  Supper 819,  823 

LutheraUf  name 117-122 

Lutheran  Church,  distinctive 

principle  of 123 

character  and  claims  of 124 

compared         with         other 

churches 125,126 

Doctrines  of 126 

misrepresented 129 

neither  Arminian  nor  Cal- 

vinistic 127 

Rule  of  Faith,  and  Creed  ...   128 

Confessions  of,  Shedd  on....   345 

Lutheranisin,  historical 180 

Man,  Fall  of 376 

personal  unity 804 

3Ianna,  Type  of  Christ's  Body. 
Cyril 598 

Gerhard  598 

Lombard  598 

3Iarhurg,  Colloquy  at,  Arti- 
cles of <^55 

Original  Sin 427 

Marheinehe,  Fathers 726,  738 

Martyr,  Peter,  Faith  of  Infants  580 

Lord's  Supper 636 

3Iartyrs  of  the  Word « 

Mary,  the  Virgin 381,  382 

Matier  and  Spirit 486 


838 


INDEX. 


MaxentiuSf  Lord's  Supper 07o 

MelancthoUf       correspondence 

with  Luther 227 

Relations  to  Augsburg  Con- 
fession....   219 

Luther's  admiration  of 234 

Forniuhi  of  Concord....   o2G,  327 

Original  Siti 362 

definition  of 407,  408 

on     inseparable     unity     of 

Christ's  person 482 

MetaphOi'f  none    in    the   Lord's 

Supper [>13 

nature  and  laws  of. 701 

Metaphf/Sic  of  doctrine  of  Sup- 
per, distinct  questions  on 805 

sound,  in  harmony  with  doc- 
trine of  true  presence  809-811 

Metonymy 701,  702 

Michelet,  on  Luther 3 

Mill,  J.  Stuart 801,  802,  804 

Mode  and  Kind &07 

Mnsculus 311 

Name,  Denominational 11-') 

Natural BOO 

Nature  of  things 800 

Navarre,  King  of 132 

Nestor ianisni 475 

3Vt7rH,  J- ^V.. Dr., Lutheran  Church   157 
Notliing,  privative  an  1  negative  397 

Objects,  the  Sacramental 599-601 

CEcola^npadiuSf  Lord's  Supper  666, 
756. 

iEcunienius,  Ascension 815 

Oni n  ijrresence 7  97 

Onus  probandi  rests  on  oppo- 
sers  of  Scripture  doctrine  of  Sup- 
per     799 

Oral  Manducatlon 461-463 

Oi'if/inal  Sin,  See  Sin,  Original..  280 
Osiander,      A.,     Consubstantia- 
tion 767 

Pagans  and  Idolaters,  calumnies 

in   regard  to  Lord's  Supper 752 

imitations  of  Supper 752 

I*asehal  Lamb,  type  of  Christ  592 

-597. 
I*assover,  a  type  of  Lord's  Sup- 
per   592-598 

Pelagianisni  445-454 

and  unconditional  election  ..  584 

J*efagius 445-447 

J*ers('rufion 144 

J'erson^  human,  unity  of,  fellow- 
ship of  properties  in  804,  805 


Philosophy  Modern,  Doctrine 

of  true  presence 787 

Plctetus,  Lutherans  and  Calvin- 

ists 137 

Pietists,  early 196 

Predestination,     Formula     of 

Concord  321-327 

P re-existence  of  soul 868 

Presence,  the  true 601-612 

Sacramental,  Lutheran  Doc- 
trine, summary  view  of...  650 
-657. 

Modes  of 650,  812 

History  of  Doctrine 657-668 

Literature 657,  n 

Controversy  on,  how  to  be 

decided 700 

—  Continual,      no      argument 

against  Sacramental 821 

Sacramental,   when   does  it 

begin?  822 

Progress,  true,  nature  of 206 

Propitiation   and    Sacramental 

presence 654,  657 

Protestant,   name    of   Lutheran 

Church 117 

Puset/,    Dr.,     Testimony    of    the 
Fathers  658-663 

Quenstedt,  Fall 377 

Baptism 544 

Consubstantiation  769 


,..  366 

...  197 

...  627 

...  792 

...  793 

Heforniation,   Church    of   the, 

Conservative IV. 

Early  efforts  for  19 

Era,  characteristics  of...    12,  18 

Festival  of 4 


Race,  Human,  unity  of... 
Rationalism,  character  of 

and  Romanism 

Realism,  Natural 

— Personal .. 


—  Lessons  of,  for  our  time...    19-21 

—  Occasion  and  cause 1-21 

—  Providence  and  Word  in...      17 

—  Results  of 32 

—  Solutions  of  its  cause 5 

—  Value  of 20,  21 

—  Confessional  Principle V 

Confession  of VI.,  VII. 

Primary  Confession  of  VI. 

Secondary  Confessions 

of VII. 

—  Spirit  of 201 

—  Conservatism  of 203 

Specific    Doctrines    of  IX. 

X.,  XL,  XII.,  XIII.,  XIV  ,  XV. 


INDEX, 


839 


PAOE 

RegenerftUon,  Baptismal...  5G4-570 

ItcusSf  Luther's  Trjiiislution lOi) 

ItoniffHtsni  and  Rationalism G27 

Luthei-an  Church,  great  bul- 

wai'k  against 187 

and  Augsburg  Confession...  228 

255. 

Ronief  Church  of,  originally  pure  14 

Christians  in  104 

Creeds 215 

mickerff  Augsburg  Confession...  228 

239. 
Lord's  Supper 641 

Sacramental  character 622 

SacfainenfSf  efficacy  of. 825 

Chemnitz  on 825-828 

Gerhard  on 828-829 

Salvation^  Infant,  Lutheran  Sys- 
tem   484-439 

Calvinistic System  434-436 

Pelagian  System 434 

Romish  System 436 

**  Sanctified/'    (1  Cor.  vii.    14) 

sense  of 424 

Saviour^  a  living 652 

Scandinavians..  152,  153,  156,  157 

Schaff,  Lutheran  piety 155 

Schelling 790,  802 

Schenchel,  Communicatio  Idiom- 

atuni 513 

Schmalcald  Articles 280 

Origin  of 281 

Necessity  of 281 

Value 283 

Schwahach  Articles 356,  409 

Schtvenckfeld,  Lord's  Supper..  610, 

666,  718. 
Scriptures,  not  a  Creed 183 

interpretation  of 799 

Self-contradiction 801 

Self-edcistence 796 

Selneccer 310 

Sheddf  History  of  Christian  Doc- 
trine   VTII. 

Sin,  Original 280,  IX. 

Formula  of  Concord  313 

not  a  creature 354 

unity  of  Church  364 

time  of  operation 378 

involves  all  men 381 

imputation , 382 

mode  of  perpetuation 384 

fact  of 385 

result 386 

truly  sin 391 

names 391 

• morbus  and  vitium 392 


PAOE 

Sin,  Ol*ff/m</i,  analogies 394 

relations  and  connections...  399 

synonyms 400 

essence  400 

attributes 402 

acts 403 

penalties 404 

remedy 405 

definition 406 

natural  consequence 408 

Scripture  proof  of 409 

new  birth 415 

relation  of  Baptism  to 427 

no  man  lost  for,  only 429 

practical  uses  of  doctrine...  454 

-455. 

Sonl,  propagation  of 368 

*S/>acc,  nature  of. 796 

Spa/nheinif  Lutherans  and  Cal- 

vinists 134 

'*  Species,"  meaning  of 620 

Spirit  and  matter 48t) 

Stapfer,  Lord's  Supper 774-776 

Stars.. 816 

Supper,    Lord's,    Lutheran    doc- 
trine of 192 

Formula  of  Concord 314 

Reformed     and      Lutheran 

doctrines  of 465 

differences  noted 491-493 

Reformed  theory  of,  objec- 
tions to 496-501 

7—  two  views  of 500 

doctrine  of,  thetically  stated  XII. 

in  its  antithesis XIII. 

who  are  meant  ? 665 

objections  to XIV. 

I.   False  definition 755 

II.   Self-contradiction 766 

III.   Impressions    of    Dis- 
ciples    782 

IV.  Visible  presence 783 

V.  Modern  philosophy...   787 

VI.   Transubstantiation ...   807 

VIL  Christ   has  left  world  811 

VIII.  Right  hand  of  God...  817 

IX.    "In,  with,  under.'"...   819 

X.  Continunl  presence...  821 

XI.  Sacramental  use 822 

XII.  Efficacy 824 

Old  Testament  foreshadows 

of 585-598 

New  Testament  doctrine 599 

Fathers'  Interpretation  of...  635 

Non-Lutheran  Reformers...   636 

English       and       American 

writers 637-640 

German  interpreters 640 


S40 


INDEX. 


PAOK 

Supper f  superstitions  in 752 

—  docirine,  importance  of 829 

Sf/inholj  Symbolical  Books...  715,  716 

Sjfiiecdoche 702 

SifsteitlSf  Lutheran  and  Calvinis- 
tic,  difference  of,  source 457 

TertuUian,  Lord's  Supper..  675,  742 

-745. 

personal  unity  of  man 805 

Testament,      New,      Luther's 

translation III. 

defects  in 110 

order  of  books  in 100 

revision  and  publication 101 

early  impressions 102 

enemies  of..  103 

counter-translations  ...   104,  100 

growth  of  literature  of 108 

— '■ merits  of Ill 

Texts,  Greek,  Lxuher's 96 

Thcodoret,  Lnnl's  Supper..  635,  675 
Theopliylact,  Lord's  Supper....  635 

Ascension 815 

Theremin^  TjonVs  Supper 776.  n 

Theses,  Luther's 2 

Thh'fi/  Years'  War 20.  156 

*^This'>  (touto^ 667-673 

Alford  ..; 673 

Hammoml 672 

Hengstenberg 672 

Lange 672 

MaMonatus 673 

Schaff 673 

Thorouf/hness,    spirit    of    our 

time,  adverse  to 207 

Torf/au,Book  of 298 

Tradncianisni 371 

Transubstantiation,  Formula 

of  Concord 315 

Dr.  Shedd.  343 

rejected 623-629 

Fathers,  testimony  against..  740 

opposed  to  sound  metaphj'sic  808 

Trinity 798 


PAGE 

Tur^^etin,  J.,  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed     137 

Type 716 

Ubiquity  of  Christ's   body  not 

held  by  Lutheran  Church 131 

Dr.  Shedd 349 

Dr.  Gerhart 495,496 

Uniotiistn  198 

Unity,  Church,  true  137,  141, 142,  182 
C7'/i?6'0/*f/fi/,  Communion  of  the...  641 
-648. 

Ursinus,  faith  of  infants 580 

Romish  and  Lutheran  inter- 
pretation   628 

Vcetins,  faith  of  infants 580 

F'/l^^/ff^e,  Luther's  New  Testament     93 

-96. 

JViggers,  Lutheran  Church 125 

Denmark  156 

Sweden 156,  157 

Will,  Free,  Formula  of  Concord  313 

conditions  of 450 

Pelagian  views  of. 453-454 

Wi}ier,  Apology 276 

Wittenberg,  beginning  of   Ref- 
ormation        1 

Word  of  God,  cause  of  the  Ref- 
ormation        6 

Works  Good,  Formula  of   Con- 
cord   313 

Xitnenes,      Cardinal,      Polyglot 
Complutensian 8,96,  99,  108 

Zivingle,  Luther 133 

Pelagian 447-450 

denial  of 448 

on  Lord's  Supper  607,  611,  615 

-618,  629,  630,  636. 

original  doctrine  of 755 

gave  a  check  to  Reformation  829 


THE   END. 


BRiTTLE  DO  NOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


0057103097 


